This is a modern-English version of More Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 1: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters, originally written by Darwin, Charles. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN

By Charles Darwin

A RECORD OF HIS WORK IN A SERIES OF HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED LETTERS

EDITED BY FRANCIS DARWIN, FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE,
AND A.C. SEWARD, FELLOW OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

IN TWO VOLUMES

Transcriber's Notes:

All biographical footnotes appear at the end of Volume II.

All biographical footnotes are located at the end of Volume II.

All other notes by Charles Darwin's editors appear in the text, in brackets () with a Chapter/Note or Letter/Note number.

All other notes by Charles Darwin's editors are found in the text, in brackets () with a Chapter/Note or Letter/Note number.

VOLUME I.

DEDICATED WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT, TO

SIR JOSEPH HOOKER

IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIS LIFELONG FRIENDSHIP WITH CHARLES DARWIN

"You will never know how much I owe to you for your constant kindness and encouragement"

CHARLES DARWIN TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER, SEPTEMBER 14, 1862

PREFACE

The "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" was published in 1887. Since that date, through the kindness of various correspondents, additional letters have been received; among them may be mentioned those written by Mr. Darwin to Mr. Belt, Lady Derby, Hugh Falconer, Mr. Francis Galton, Huxley, Lyell, Mr. John Morley, Max Muller, Owen, Lord Playfair, John Scott, Thwaites, Sir William Turner, John Jenner Weir. But the material for our work consisted in chief part of a mass of letters which, for want of space or for other reasons, were not printed in the "Life and Letters." We would draw particular attention to the correspondence with Sir Joseph Hooker. To him Mr. Darwin wrote with complete freedom, and this has given something of a personal charm to the most technical of his letters. There is also much correspondence, hardly inferior in biographical interest, with Sir Charles Lyell, Fritz Muller, Mr. Huxley, and Mr. Wallace. From this unused material we have been able to compile an almost complete record of Mr. Darwin's work in a series of letters now published for the first time. We have, however, in a few instances, repeated paragraphs, or in one or two cases whole letters, from the "Life and Letters," where such repetition seemed necessary for the sake of clearness or continuity.

The "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" was published in 1887. Since then, thanks to various correspondents, we've received additional letters, including those written by Mr. Darwin to Mr. Belt, Lady Derby, Hugh Falconer, Mr. Francis Galton, Huxley, Lyell, Mr. John Morley, Max Muller, Owen, Lord Playfair, John Scott, Thwaites, Sir William Turner, and John Jenner Weir. However, the main material for our work consists largely of a collection of letters that weren’t printed in the "Life and Letters" due to space limitations or other reasons. We want to highlight the correspondence with Sir Joseph Hooker. Mr. Darwin wrote to him with complete openness, adding a personal touch to some of his most technical letters. There’s also a lot of correspondence, almost equally interesting biographically, with Sir Charles Lyell, Fritz Muller, Mr. Huxley, and Mr. Wallace. From this unused material, we’ve been able to compile an almost complete account of Mr. Darwin's work in a series of letters that are published for the first time. However, in a few cases, we've repeated some paragraphs, or in one or two instances entire letters, from the "Life and Letters," when such repetition seemed necessary for clarity or flow.

Our two volumes contain practically all the matter that it now seems desirable to publish. But at some future time others may find interesting data in what remains unprinted; this is certainly true of a short series of letters dealing with the Cirripedes, which are omitted solely for want of space. (Preface/1. Those addressed to the late Albany Hancock have already appeared in the "Transactions of the Tyneside Nat. Field Club," VIII., page 250.)

Our two volumes include almost everything that seems worth publishing at this time. However, in the future, others might find valuable information in what hasn't been printed yet; this is definitely the case for a brief series of letters about the Cirripedes, which were left out just because of space limitations. (Preface/1. The letters sent to the late Albany Hancock have already been published in the "Transactions of the Tyneside Nat. Field Club," VIII., page 250.)

We are fortunate in being permitted, by Sir Joseph Hooker and by Mr. Wallace, to publish certain letters from them to Mr. Darwin. We have also been able to give a few letters from Sir Charles Lyell, Hugh Falconer, Edward Forbes, Dr. Asa Gray, Professor Hyatt, Fritz Muller, Mr. Francis Galton, and Sir T. Lauder Brunton. To the two last named, also to Mrs. Lyell (the biographer of Sir Charles), Mrs. Asa Gray and Mrs. Hyatt, we desire to express our grateful acknowledgments.

We are lucky to have permission from Sir Joseph Hooker and Mr. Wallace to publish some of their letters to Mr. Darwin. We can also share a few letters from Sir Charles Lyell, Hugh Falconer, Edward Forbes, Dr. Asa Gray, Professor Hyatt, Fritz Muller, Mr. Francis Galton, and Sir T. Lauder Brunton. We want to extend our heartfelt thanks to the last two named, as well as to Mrs. Lyell (the biographer of Sir Charles), Mrs. Asa Gray, and Mrs. Hyatt.

The present volumes have been prepared, so as to give as full an idea as possible of the course of Mr. Darwin's work. The volumes therefore necessarily contain many letters of a highly technical character, but none, we hope, which are not essentially interesting. With a view to saving space, we have confined ourselves to elucidating the letters by full annotations, and have for the same reason—though with some regret—omitted in most cases the beginnings and endings of the letters. For the main facts of Mr. Darwin's life, we refer our readers to the abstract of his private Diary, given in the present volume.

The current volumes have been created to provide as complete an understanding as possible of Mr. Darwin's work. As a result, these volumes include many letters that are quite technical, but we hope none of them are lacking in interest. To save space, we've focused on explaining the letters with thorough annotations, and for the same reason—though with some regret—we've omitted most of the beginnings and endings of the letters. For key details about Mr. Darwin's life, we direct our readers to the summary of his private diary included in this volume.

Mr. Darwin generally wrote his letters when he was tired or hurried, and this often led to the omission of words. We have usually inserted the articles, and this without any indication of their absence in the originals. Where there seemed any possibility of producing an alteration of meaning (and in many cases where there is no such possibility) we have placed the introduced words in square brackets. We may say once for all that throughout the book square brackets indicate words not found in the originals. (Preface/2. Except in a few places where brackets are used to indicate passages previously published. In all such cases the meaning of the symbol is explained.) Dots indicate omissions, but many omissions are made without being so indicated.

Mr. Darwin typically wrote his letters when he was tired or in a rush, which often resulted in missing words. We usually added the articles without noting their absence in the originals. Where there was any chance of changing the meaning (and in many cases where there isn't), we placed the added words in square brackets. We can say upfront that throughout the book, square brackets indicate words that aren't in the originals. (Preface/2. Except in a few places where brackets are used to show previously published passages. In all such instances, the meaning of the symbol is clarified.) Dots indicate omitted sections, but many omissions are made without being noted.

The selection and arrangement of the letters have not been easy. Our plan has been to classify the letters according to subject—into such as deal with Evolution, Geographical Distribution, Botany, etc., and in each group to place the letters chronologically. But in several of the chapters we have adopted sectional headings, which we believe will be a help to the reader. The great difficulty lay in deciding in which of the chief groups a given letter should be placed. If the MS. had been cut up into paragraphs, there would have been no such difficulty; but we feel strongly that a letter should as far as possible be treated as a whole. We have in fact allowed this principle to interfere with an accurate classification, so that the reader will find, for instance, in the chapters on Evolution, questions considered which might equally well have come under Geographical Distribution or Geology, or questions in the chapter on Man which might have been placed under the heading Evolution. In the same way, to avoid mutilation, we have allowed references to one branch of science to remain in letters mainly concerned with another subject. For these irregularities we must ask the reader's patience, and beg him to believe that some pains have been devoted to arrangement.

The selection and organization of the letters hasn't been easy. Our plan has been to categorize the letters by topic—like Evolution, Geographical Distribution, Botany, etc.—and within each group, to order the letters chronologically. However, in several chapters, we've included section headings that we think will help the reader. The biggest challenge was figuring out which main category each letter should belong to. If the manuscript had been divided into paragraphs, it would have been straightforward; but we strongly believe that a letter should be treated as a complete piece. In fact, we've allowed this principle to affect how accurately we classify them, so the reader will notice, for example, that in the chapters on Evolution, there are topics that could just as easily fit under Geographical Distribution or Geology, or topics in the chapter about Man that could be placed under Evolution. Similarly, to avoid cutting anything out, we've kept references to one area of science in letters mainly focused on another topic. We appreciate the reader's understanding for these irregularities and assure them that we have put thought into the arrangement.

Mr. Darwin, who was careful in other things, generally omitted the date in familiar correspondence, and it is often only by treating a letter as a detective studies a crime that we can make sure of its date. Fortunately, however, Sir Joseph Hooker and others of Darwin's correspondents were accustomed to add the date on which the letters were received. This sometimes leads to an inaccuracy which needs a word of explanation. Thus a letter which Mr. Darwin dated "Wednesday" might be headed by us "Wednesday {January 3rd, 1867}," the latter half being the date on which the letter was received; if it had been dated by the writer it would have been "Wednesday, January 2nd, 1867."

Mr. Darwin, who was careful in other matters, usually left out the date in his casual letters, and we often have to approach a letter like a detective examining a crime to figure out when it was written. Luckily, though, Sir Joseph Hooker and some of Darwin's other correspondents often added the date they received the letters. This can sometimes result in inaccuracies that require a bit of clarification. For example, a letter that Mr. Darwin labeled "Wednesday" might be noted by us as "Wednesday {January 3rd, 1867}," with the second part being the date it was received; if he had dated it himself, it would have read "Wednesday, January 2nd, 1867."

In thanking those friends—especially Sir Joseph Hooker and Mr. Wallace—who have looked through some of our proof-sheets, we wish to make it clear that they are not in the smallest degree responsible for our errors or omissions; the weight of our shortcomings rests on us alone.

In thanking those friends—especially Sir Joseph Hooker and Mr. Wallace—who have reviewed some of our proof sheets, we want to clarify that they are not at all responsible for our mistakes or omissions; the responsibility for our shortcomings rests solely on us.

We desire to express our gratitude to those who have so readily supplied us with information, especially to Sir Joseph Hooker, Professor Judd, Professor Newton, Dr. Sharp, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and Mr. Wallace. And we have pleasure in mentioning Mr. H.W. Rutherford, of the University Library, to whose conscientious work as a copyist we are much indebted.

We want to thank everyone who has generously provided us with information, especially Sir Joseph Hooker, Professor Judd, Professor Newton, Dr. Sharp, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and Mr. Wallace. We also want to acknowledge Mr. H.W. Rutherford from the University Library, whose diligent work as a copyist has been invaluable to us.

Finally, it is a pleasure to express our obligation to those who have helped us in the matter of illustrations. The portraits of Dr. Asa Gray, Mr. Huxley, Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Romanes, are from their respective Biographies, and for permission to make use of them we have to thank Mrs. Gray, Mr. L. Huxley, Mrs. Lyell, and Mrs. Romanes, as well as the publishers of the books in question. For the reproduction of the early portrait of Mr. Darwin we are indebted to Miss Wedgwood; for the interesting portraits of Hugh Falconer and Edward Forbes we have to thank Mr. Irvine Smith, who obtained for us the negatives; these being of paper, and nearly sixty years old, rendered their reproduction a work of some difficulty. We also thank Messrs. Elliott & Fry for very kindly placing at our disposal a negative of the fine portrait, which forms the frontispiece to Volume II. For the opportunity of making facsimiles of diagrams in certain of the letters, we are once more indebted to Sir Joseph Hooker, who has most generously given the original letters to Mr. Darwin's family.

Finally, we want to express our gratitude to those who have helped us with the illustrations. The portraits of Dr. Asa Gray, Mr. Huxley, Sir Charles Lyell, and Mr. Romanes come from their respective biographies, and we thank Mrs. Gray, Mr. L. Huxley, Mrs. Lyell, and Mrs. Romanes, as well as the publishers of those books, for allowing us to use them. We're also grateful to Miss Wedgwood for the early portrait of Mr. Darwin; for the interesting portraits of Hugh Falconer and Edward Forbes, we thank Mr. Irvine Smith, who acquired the negatives for us. Since these were paper negatives and nearly sixty years old, reproducing them was quite challenging. We appreciate Messrs. Elliott & Fry for kindly providing a negative of the beautiful portrait that appears as the frontispiece to Volume II. Lastly, we owe thanks to Sir Joseph Hooker for allowing us to make facsimiles of diagrams from certain letters, as he generously gave the original letters to Mr. Darwin's family.

Cambridge, October, 1902.

Cambridge, October 1902.

PREFACE

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN.

VOLUME I.

OUTLINE OF CHARLES DARWIN'S LIFE.

CHARLES DARWIN

CHAPTER 1.I.—AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL FRAGMENT, AND EARLY LETTERS.

CHAPTER 1.II.—EVOLUTION, 1844-1858.

CHAPTER 1.III.—EVOLUTION, 1859-1863.

CHAPTER 1.IV.—EVOLUTION, 1864-1869.

CHAPTER 1.V.—EVOLUTION, 1870-1882.

CHAPTER 1.VI.—GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, 1843-1867.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.
Outline of Charles Darwin's Life, etc.
CHAPTER 1.I.—An Autobiographical Fragment, and Early Letters,
1809-1842.
CHAPTER 1.II.—Evolution, 1844-1858.
CHAPTER 1.III.—Evolution, 1859-1863.
CHAPTER 1.IV.—Evolution, 1864-1869.
CHAPTER 1.V.—Evolution, 1870-1882.
CHAPTER 1.VI.—Geographical Distribution, 1843-1867.
ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME I.
CHARLES AND CATHERINE DARWIN, 1816. From a coloured chalk drawing by
Sharples, in possession of Miss Wedgwood, of Leith Hill Place.
MRS. DARWIN, 1881. From a photograph by Barraud.
EDWARD FORBES, 1844 (?). From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.
THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, 1857. From a photograph by Maull & Fox. (Huxley's
"Life," Volume I.)
PROFESSOR HENSLOW. From a photograph.
HUGH FALCONER, 1844. From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.
JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER, 1870 (?). From a photograph by Wallich.
ASA GRAY, 1867. From a photograph. ("Letters of Asa Gray," Volume I.)
VOLUME II
CHAPTER 2.VII.—Geographical Distribution, 1867-1882.
CHAPTER 2.VIII.—Man, 1860-1882. 2.VIII.I. Descent of Man, 1860-1882.
2.VIII.II. Sexual Selection, 1866-1872. 2.VIII.III. Expression,
1868-1874.
CHAPTER 2.IX.—Geology, 1840-1882. 2.IX.I. Vulcanicity and
Earth-movements, 1840-1881. 2.IX.II. Ice-action, 1841-1882. 2.IX.III.
The Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, 1841-1880. 2.IX.IV. Coral Reefs, Fossil
and Recent, 1841-1881. 2.IX.V. Cleavage and Foliation, 1846-1856.
2.IX.VI. Age of the World, 1868-1877. 2.IX.VII. Geological Action of
Earth-worms, 1880-1882. 2.IX.VIII. Miscellaneous, 1846-1878.
CHAPTER 2.X.—Botany, 1843-1871. 2.X.I. Miscellaneous, 1843-1862.
2.X.II. Melastomaceae, 1862-1881. 2.X.III. Correspondence with John
Scott, 1862-1871.
CHAPTER 2.XI.—Botany, 1863-1881. 2.XI.I. Miscellaneous, 1863-1866.
2.XI.II. Correspondence with Fritz Muller, 1865-1881. 2.XI.III.
Miscellaneous, 1868-1881.
CHAPTER 2.XII.—Vivisection and Miscellaneous Subjects, 1867-1882.
2.XII.I. Vivisection, 1875-1882. 2.XII.II. Miscellaneous Subjects,
1867-1882.
ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME II.
CHARLES DARWIN, 1881. From a photograph by Elliott & Fry.
ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, 1878. From a photograph by Maull & Fox.
GEORGE J. ROMANES, 1891. From a photograph by Elliott & Fry. (Romanes'
"Life.")
CHARLES LYELL. From a photograph by Maull & Fox. (Lyell's "Life," Volume
II.)
CHARLES DARWIN, 1854 (?). From a photograph by Maull & Fox.
FRITZ MULLER. From a photograph.
FACSIMILES OF SKETCHES IN THE LETTERS.
FIGURE 1. Hypothetical Section Illustrating Continental Elevation.
FIGURE 2. Diagram of Junction between Dike and Lava.
FIGURE 3. Outline of an Elliptic Crater.
FIGURE 4. Hypothetical Section showing the Relation of Dikes to Volcanic
Vents.
FIGURE 5. Map illustrating the Linear Arrangement of Volcanic Islands in
relation to Continental Coast-lines.
FIGURE 6. Sketch showing the Form and Distribution of Quartz in a
Foliated Rock.
FIGURE 7. Sketch showing the Arrangement of Felspar and Quartz in a
Metamorphic Series.
FIGURE 8. Floral Diagram of an Orchid.
FIGURE 9. Dissected Flower of Habenaria Chlorantha.
FIGURE 10. Diagram of a Cruciferous Flower.
FIGURE 11. Longitudinal Section of a Cruciferous Flower.
FIGURE 12. Transverse Section of the Ovary of a Crucifer.
FIGURE 13. (Contents/1. Not a facsimile.) Leaf of Trifolium resupinatum.
(Drawn by Miss Pertz.)

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.
Overview of Charles Darwin's Life, etc.
CHAPTER 1.I.—An Autobiographical Fragment and Early Letters,
1809-1842.
CHAPTER 1.II.—Evolution, 1844-1858.
CHAPTER 1.III.—Evolution, 1859-1863.
CHAPTER 1.IV.—Evolution, 1864-1869.
CHAPTER 1.V.—Evolution, 1870-1882.
CHAPTER 1.VI.—Geographical Distribution, 1843-1867.
ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME I.
CHARLES AND CATHERINE DARWIN, 1816. From a colored chalk drawing by
Sharples, owned by Miss Wedgwood, of Leith Hill Place.
MRS. DARWIN, 1881. From a photograph by Barraud.
EDWARD FORBES, 1844 (?). From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.
THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, 1857. From a photograph by Maull & Fox. (Huxley's
"Life," Volume I.)
PROFESSOR HENSLOW. From a photograph.
HUGH FALCONER, 1844. From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.
JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER, 1870 (?). From a photograph by Wallich.
ASA GRAY, 1867. From a photograph. ("Letters of Asa Gray," Volume I.)
VOLUME II
CHAPTER 2.VII.—Geographical Distribution, 1867-1882.
CHAPTER 2.VIII.—Man, 1860-1882. 2.VIII.I. Descent of Man, 1860-1882.
2.VIII.II. Sexual Selection, 1866-1872. 2.VIII.III. Expression,
1868-1874.
CHAPTER 2.IX.—Geology, 1840-1882. 2.IX.I. Volcanoes and
Earth-movements, 1840-1881. 2.IX.II. Ice Action, 1841-1882. 2.IX.III.
The Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, 1841-1880. 2.IX.IV. Coral Reefs, Fossil
and Recent, 1841-1881. 2.IX.V. Cleavage and Foliation, 1846-1856.
2.IX.VI. Age of the Earth, 1868-1877. 2.IX.VII. Geological Impact of
Earthworms, 1880-1882. 2.IX.VIII. Miscellaneous, 1846-1878.
CHAPTER 2.X.—Botany, 1843-1871. 2.X.I. Miscellaneous, 1843-1862.
2.X.II. Melastomaceae, 1862-1881. 2.X.III. Correspondence with John
Scott, 1862-1871.
CHAPTER 2.XI.—Botany, 1863-1881. 2.XI.I. Miscellaneous, 1863-1866.
2.XI.II. Correspondence with Fritz Muller, 1865-1881. 2.XI.III.
Miscellaneous, 1868-1881.
CHAPTER 2.XII.—Vivisection and Miscellaneous Topics, 1867-1882.
2.XII.I. Vivisection, 1875-1882. 2.XII.II. Miscellaneous Topics,
1867-1882.
ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME II.
CHARLES DARWIN, 1881. From a photograph by Elliott & Fry.
ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, 1878. From a photograph by Maull & Fox.
GEORGE J. ROMANES, 1891. From a photograph by Elliott & Fry. (Romanes'
"Life.")
CHARLES LYELL. From a photograph by Maull & Fox. (Lyell's "Life," Volume
II.)
CHARLES DARWIN, 1854 (?). From a photograph by Maull & Fox.
FRITZ MULLER. From a photograph.
FACSIMILES OF SKETCHES IN THE LETTERS.
FIGURE 1. Hypothetical Section Illustrating Continental Elevation.
FIGURE 2. Diagram of Junction between Dike and Lava.
FIGURE 3. Outline of an Elliptic Crater.
FIGURE 4. Hypothetical Section showing the Relation of Dikes to Volcanic
Vents.
FIGURE 5. Map illustrating the Linear Arrangement of Volcanic Islands in
relation to Continental Coastlines.
FIGURE 6. Sketch showing the Form and Distribution of Quartz in a
Foliated Rock.
FIGURE 7. Sketch showing the Arrangement of Feldspar and Quartz in a
Metamorphic Series.
FIGURE 8. Floral Diagram of an Orchid.
FIGURE 9. Dissected Flower of Habenaria Chlorantha.
FIGURE 10. Diagram of a Cruciferous Flower.
FIGURE 11. Longitudinal Section of a Cruciferous Flower.
FIGURE 12. Transverse Section of the Ovary of a Crucifer.
FIGURE 13. (Contents/1. Not a facsimile.) Leaf of Trifolium resupinatum.
(Drawn by Miss Pertz.)

MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN.

VOLUME I.

OUTLINE OF CHARLES DARWIN'S LIFE.

BASED ON HIS DIARY, DATED AUGUST 1838.

References to the Journals in which Mr. Darwin's papers were published will be found in his "Life and Letters" III., Appendix II. We are greatly indebted to Mr. C.F. Cox, of New York, for calling our attention to mistakes in the Appendix, and we take this opportunity of correcting them.

References to the journals where Mr. Darwin's papers were published can be found in his "Life and Letters" III., Appendix II. We owe a big thanks to Mr. C.F. Cox from New York for pointing out mistakes in the Appendix, and we want to take this chance to correct them.

Appendix II., List ii.—Mr. Romanes spoke on Mr. Darwin's essay on Instinct at a meeting of the Linnean Society, December 6th, 1883, and some account of it is given in "Nature" of the same date. But it was not published by the Linnean Society.

Appendix II., List ii.—Mr. Romanes talked about Mr. Darwin's essay on Instinct at a meeting of the Linnean Society on December 6th, 1883, and some details about it are provided in "Nature" from that same date. However, it wasn't published by the Linnean Society.

Appendix II., List iii.—"Origin of saliferous deposits. Salt lakes of Patagonia and La Plata" (1838). This is the heading of an extract from Darwin's volume on South America reprinted in the "Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society," Volume II., Part ii., "Miscellanea," pages 127-8, 1846.

Appendix II., List iii.—"Origin of salt deposits. Salt lakes of Patagonia and La Plata" (1838). This is the title of an excerpt from Darwin's book on South America reprinted in the "Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society," Volume II., Part ii., "Miscellanea," pages 127-8, 1846.

The paper on "Analogy of the Structure of some Volcanic Rocks, etc." was published in 1845, not in 1851.

A paper "On the Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency," in the "Entomologist's Weekly Intelligencer" viii., and "Gardeners' Chronicle," June 9th, 1860, should be inserted in the bibliography.

A paper "On the Fertilization of British Orchids by Insect Agency," in the "Entomologist's Weekly Intelligencer" viii., and "Gardeners' Chronicle," June 9th, 1860, should be added to the bibliography.

1809. February 12th: Born at Shrewsbury.

1809. February 12th: Born in Shrewsbury.

1817. Death of his mother.

1817. Death of his mom.

1818. Went to Shrewsbury School.

1818. Attended Shrewsbury School.

1825. Left Shrewsbury School.

1826.

October: Went to Edinburgh University. Read two papers before the Plinian Society of Edinburgh "at the close of 1826 or early in 1827."

October: Attended Edinburgh University. Presented two papers to the Plinian Society of Edinburgh "at the end of 1826 or the beginning of 1827."

1827. Entered at Christ's College, Cambridge.

1827. Enrolled at Christ's College, Cambridge.

1828. Began residence at Cambridge.

1828. Moved to Cambridge.

1831.

January: Passed his examination for B.A., and kept the two following terms.

January: He passed his B.A. exam and continued for the next two terms.

August: Geological tour with Sedgwick.

September 11th: Went to Plymouth to see the "Beagle."

September 11th: I went to Plymouth to see the "Beagle."

October 2nd: "Took leave of my home."

"Left my house."

December 27th: "Sailed from England on our circumnavigation."

December 27th: "Departed from England on our journey around the world."

1832.

January 16th: "First landed on a tropical shore" (Santiago).

January 16th: "First arrived at a tropical beach" (Santiago).

1833.

December 6th: "Sailed for last time from Rio Plata."

December 6th: "Set sail for the last time from Rio Plata."

1834.

June 10th: "Sailed for last time from Tierra del Fuego."

June 10th: "Sailed for the last time from Tierra del Fuego."

1835.

September 5th: "Sailed from west shores of South America."

September 5th: "Set sail from the western shores of South America."

November 16th: Letters to Professor Henslow, read at a meeting of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

November 16th: Letters to Professor Henslow, shared at a meeting of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

November 18th: Paper read before the Geological Society on Notes made during a Survey of the East and West Coasts of South America in years 1832-35.

November 18th: Paper presented to the Geological Society on observations made during a survey of the East and West Coasts of South America from 1832 to 1835.

1836.

May 31st: Anchored at the Cape of Good Hope.

May 31: Anchored at the Cape of Good Hope.

October 2nd: Anchored at Falmouth.

October 2: Anchored in Falmouth.

October 4th: Reached Shrewsbury after an absence of five years and two days.

October 4th: Arrived in Shrewsbury after being away for five years and two days.

December 13th: Went to live at Cambridge.

Dec 13: Moved to Cambridge.

1837.

January 4th: Paper on Recent Elevation in Chili read.

January 4th: Paper on Recent Elevation in Chile read.

March 13th: Settled at 36, Great Marlborough Street.

March 13th: Moved into 36, Great Marlborough Street.

March 14th: Paper on "Rhea" read.

March 14th: Paper on "Rhea" presented.

May: Read papers on Coral Formation, and on the Pampas, to the Geological Society.

May: Present papers on Coral Formation and the Pampas to the Geological Society.

July: Opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species.

July: Started my first notebook on the Transmutation of Species.

March 13th to November: Occupied with his Journal.

March 13 to November: Busy with his Journal.

October and November: Preparing the scheme for the Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle." Working at Geology of South America.

October and November: Getting ready the plan for the Zoology of the Voyage of the "Beagle." Working on the Geology of South America.

November 1st: Read the paper on Earthworms before the Geological Society.

November 1st: Present the paper on Earthworms at the Geological Society.

1838.

Worked at the Geology of South America and Zoology of Voyage. "Some little species theory."

Worked on the Geology of South America and the Zoology of the Voyage. "A few minor species theories."

March 7th: Read paper on the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena and on the Formation of Mountain Chains, to the Geological Society.

March 7th: Presented a paper on the Connection of certain Volcanic Phenomena and on the Formation of Mountain Chains to the Geological Society.

May: Health began to break down.

May: Health began to decline.

June 23rd: Started for Glen Roy. The paper on Glen Roy was written in August and September.

June 23rd: Headed to Glen Roy. The report on Glen Roy was written in August and September.

October 5th: Began Coral paper.

October 5th: Started Coral paper.

November 11th: Engaged to be married to his cousin, Emma Wedgwood.

November 11th: Got engaged to his cousin, Emma Wedgwood.

December 31st: "Entered 12 Upper Gower Street."

December 31st: "Arrived at 12 Upper Gower Street."

1839.

January 29th: Married at Maer.

February and March: Some work on Corals and on Species Theory.

February and March: Some work on corals and on species theory.

March (part) and April: Working at Coral paper. Papers on a Rock seen on an Iceberg, and on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. Published "Journal and Remarks," being volume iii. of the "Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of H.M.S. 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,' etc." For the rest of the year, Corals and Zoology of the Voyage. Publication of the "Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle,'" Part II. (Mammalia).

March (part) and April: Working at Coral paper. Papers on a rock seen on an iceberg, and on the parallel roads of Glen Roy. Published "Journal and Remarks," which is volume III of the "Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of H.M.S. 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,' etc." For the rest of the year, Corals and Zoology of the Voyage. Publication of the "Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle,'" Part II (Mammalia).

1840.

Worked at Corals and the Zoology of the Voyage. Contributed Geological introduction to Part I. of the "Zoology of the Voyage" (Fossil Mammalia by Owen).

Worked at Corals and the Zoology of the Voyage. Contributed to the geological introduction in Part I of the "Zoology of the Voyage" (Fossil Mammalia by Owen).

1841.

Publication of Part III. of the "Zoology of the Voyage" (Birds). Read paper on Boulders and Glacial Deposits of South America, to Geological Society. Published paper on a remarkable bar of Sandstone off Pernambuco, on the coast of Brazil. Publication of Part IV. of "Zoology of the Voyage" (Fish).

Publication of Part III of the "Zoology of the Voyage" (Birds). Presented a paper on Boulders and Glacial Deposits of South America to the Geological Society. Published a paper about a notable sandstone bar off Pernambuco, on the coast of Brazil. Publication of Part IV of "Zoology of the Voyage" (Fish).

1842.

May 6th: Last proof of the Coral book corrected.

May 6th: Final corrections made to the Coral book.

June: Examined Glacier action in Wales. "Wrote pencil sketch of my Species Theory."

June: Analyzed glacier activity in Wales. "Drafted a pencil sketch of my Species Theory."

July: Wrote paper on Glaciers of Caernarvonshire.

July: Wrote a paper on the glaciers of Caernarvonshire.

October: Began his book on Volcanic Islands.

October: He started his book on Volcanic Islands.

1843.

Working at "Volcanic Islands" and "some Species work."

1844.

February 13th: Finished "Volcanic Islands."

Feb 13: Completed "Volcanic Islands."

July to September: Wrote an enlarged version of Species Theory. Papers on Sagitta, and on Planaria.

July to September: Wrote a longer version of Species Theory. Research papers on Sagitta and Planaria.

July 27th: Began his book on the Geology of South America.

July 27th: Started his book on the Geology of South America.

1845.

Paper on the Analogy of the Structure of Volcanic Rocks with that of Glaciers. "Proc. R. Soc. Edin."

Paper on the Similarities between the Structure of Volcanic Rocks and Glaciers. "Proc. R. Soc. Edin."

April 25th to August 25th: Working at second edition of "Naturalist's Voyage."

April 25th to August 25th: Working on the second edition of "Naturalist's Voyage."

1846.

October 1st: Finished last proof of "Geological Observations on South America." Papers on Atlantic Dust, and on Geology of Falkland Islands, communicated to the Geological Society. Paper on Arthrobalanus.

October 1st: Completed the final proof of "Geological Observations on South America." Submitted papers on Atlantic Dust and the Geology of the Falkland Islands to the Geological Society. Submitted paper on Arthrobalanus.

1847.

Working at Cirripedes. Review of Waterhouse's "Natural History of the Mammalia."

Working at Cirripedes. Review of Waterhouse's "Natural History of the Mammals."

1848.

March 20th: Finished Scientific Instructions in Geology for the Admiralty Manual. Working at Cirripedes. Paper on Erratic Boulders.

March 20th: Completed Scientific Instructions in Geology for the Admiralty Manual. Working on Cirripedes. Paper about Erratic Boulders.

1849.

Health especially bad. Working at Cirripedes.

March-June: Water-cure at Malvern.

March-June: Hydrotherapy at Malvern.

1850.

Working at Cirripedes. Published Monographs of Recent and Fossil Lepadidae.

1852.

Working at Cirripedes.

1853.

November 30th: "Royal Medal given to me."

November 30th: "I was awarded the Royal Medal."

1854.

Published Monographs on Recent and on Fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae.

Published Monographs on Recent and Fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae.

September 9th: Finished packing up all my Cirripedes. "Began sorting notes for Species Theory."

September 9th: I finished packing up all my barnacles. "I started sorting notes for Species Theory."

1855.

March-April: Experiments on the effect of salt water on seeds. Papers on Icebergs and on Vitality of Seeds.

March-April: Experiments on how salt water affects seeds. Research papers on Icebergs and the Vitality of Seeds.

1856.

May 14th: "Began, by Lyell's advice, writing Species Sketch" (described in "Life and Letters" as the "Unfinished Book").

May 14th: "Started, based on Lyell's suggestion, writing Species Sketch" (referred to in "Life and Letters" as the "Unfinished Book").

December 16th: Finished Chapter III. Paper read to Linnean Society, On Sea-water and the Germination of Seeds.

December 16th: Completed Chapter III. Paper presented to the Linnean Society, On Sea-water and the Germination of Seeds.

1857.

September 29th: Finished Chapters VII. and VIII.

September 29th: Finished Chapters VII and VIII.

September 30th to December 29th: Working on Hybridism. Paper on the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers.

September 30th to December 29th: Working on Hybridism. Paper on the Role of Bees in the Pollination of Leguminous Flowers.

1858.

March 9th: "Finished Instinct chapter."

March 9th: "Completed Instinct chapter."

June 18th: Received Mr. Wallace's sketch of his evolutionary theory.

June 18th: Got Mr. Wallace's sketch of his theory of evolution.

July 1st: Joint paper of Darwin and Wallace read at the Linnean Society.

July 1st: Joint paper by Darwin and Wallace presented at the Linnean Society.

July 20th to July 27th: "Began Abstract of Species book," i.e., the "Origin of Species," at Sandown, I.W. Paper on Bees and Fertilisation of Flowers.

July 20th to July 27th: "Started the Abstract of Species book," meaning the "Origin of Species," at Sandown, I.W. Paper on Bees and the Pollination of Flowers.

1859.

May 25th: Began proof-sheets of the "Origin of Species."

May 25th: Started reviewing the proof sheets of the "Origin of Species."

November 24th: Publication of the "Origin": 1250 copies printed.

November 24th: Publication of the "Origin": 1,250 copies printed.

October 2nd to December 9th: At the water-cure establishment, Ilkley, Yorkshire.

October 2nd to December 9th: At the spa, Ilkley, Yorkshire.

1860.

January 7th: Publication of Edition II. of "Origin" (3000 copies).

January 7th: Release of Edition II of "Origin" (3000 copies).

January 9th: "Looking over MS. on Variation." Paper on the Fertilisation of British Orchids.

January 9th: "Reviewing the manuscript on Variation." Paper on the Fertilization of British Orchids.

July and again in September: Made observations on Drosera. Paper on Moths and Flowers. Publication of "A Naturalist's Voyage."

July and again in September: Observed Drosera. Paper on Moths and Flowers. Published "A Naturalist's Voyage."

1861.

Up to July at work on "Variation under Domestication."

Up to July working on "Variation under Domestication."

April 30th: Publication of Edition III. of "Origin" (2000 copies).

April 30th: Release of Edition III of "Origin" (2000 copies).

July to the end of year: At work on Orchids.

July to the end of the year: Working on Orchids.

November: Primula paper read at Linnean Society. Papers on Pumilio and on Fertilisation of Vinca.

November: Primula paper presented at the Linnean Society. Papers on Pumilio and on Fertilization of Vinca.

1862.

May 15th: Orchid book published. Working at Variation. Paper on Catasetum (Linnean Society). Contribution to Chapter III. of Jenyns' Memoir of Henslow.

1863.

Working at "Variation under Domestication." Papers on Yellow Rain, the Pampas, and on Cirripedes. A review of Bates' paper on Mimetic Butterflies. Severe illness to the end of year.

Working on "Variation under Domestication." Papers about Yellow Rain, the Pampas, and Cirripedes. A review of Bates' paper on Mimetic Butterflies. Serious illness until the end of the year.

1864.

Illness continued until April. Paper on Linum published by the Linnean Society.

Illness continued until April. A paper on Linum was published by the Linnean Society.

May 25th: Paper on Lythrum finished.

May 25th: Finished the paper on Lythrum.

September 13th: Paper on Climbing Plants finished. Work on "Variation under Domestication."

September 13th: Completed paper on climbing plants. Continuing work on "Variation under Domestication."

November 30th: Copley medal awarded to him.

November 30th: He was awarded the Copley Medal.

1865.

1865

January 1st: Continued at work on Variation until April 22nd. The work was interrupted by illness until late in the autumn.

January 1st: Continued working on Variation until April 22nd. The project was interrupted by illness until late in the autumn.

February: Read paper on Climbing Plants.

December 25th: Began again on Variation.

December 25th: Started over on Variation.

1866.

Continued work at "Variation under Domestication."

March 1st to May 10th: At work on Edition IV. of the "Origin." Published June (1250 copies). Read paper on Cytisus scoparius to the Linnean Society.

March 1st to May 10th: Working on Edition IV of the "Origin." Published June (1250 copies). Presented a paper on Cytisus scoparius at the Linnean Society.

December 22nd: Began the last chapter of "Variation under Domestication."

December 22nd: Started the final chapter of "Variation under Domestication."

1867.

November 15th: Finished revises of "Variation under Domestication."

November 15th: Completed revisions of "Variation under Domestication."

December: Began papers on Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants, and on Primula.

December: Started papers on Unconventional Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants, and on Primula.

1868.

January 30th: Publication of "Variation under Domestication."

January 30th: Release of "Variation under Domestication."

February 4th: Began work on Man.

February 4th: Started working on Man.

February 10th: New edition of "Variation under Domestication." Read papers on Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants, and on Verbascum.

February 10th: New edition of "Variation under Domestication." Read papers on Unofficial Breeding of Two-Form and Three-Form Plants, and on Verbascum.

1869.

February 10th: "Finished fifth edition of 'Origin'; has taken me forty-six days."

February 10th: "I finished the fifth edition of 'Origin'; it took me forty-six days."

Edition V. published in May.

Edition V published in May.

Working at the "Descent of Man." Papers on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and on the Fertilisation of Winter-flowering Plants.

Working on the "Descent of Man." Papers about the Fertilization of Orchids and the Fertilization of Winter-blooming Plants.

1870.

Working at the "Descent of Man." Paper on the Pampas Woodpecker.

Working on the "Descent of Man." Paper about the Pampas Woodpecker.

1871.

January 17th: Began the "Expression of the Emotions."

January 17th: Started the "Expression of the Emotions."

February 24th: "Descent of Man" published (2500 copies).

February 24th: "Descent of Man" published (2,500 copies).

April 27th: Finished the rough copy of "Expression."

April 27th: Completed the draft of "Expression."

June 18th: Began Edition VI. of "Origin." Paper on the Fertilisation of Leschenaultia.

June 18th: Started Edition VI of "Origin." Paper on the Fertilization of Leschenaultia.

1872.

January 10th: Finished proofs of Edition VI. of the "Origin," and "again rewriting 'Expression.'"

January 10th: Finished the proofs of Edition VI of the "Origin" and rewriting "Expression" again.

August 22nd: Finished last proofs of "Expression."

August 22nd: Completed the final proofs of "Expression."

August 23rd: Began working at Drosera.

August 23rd: Started working at Drosera.

November: "Expression" published (7000 copies, and 2000 more printed at the end of the year.)

November: "Expression" published (7,000 copies, and 2,000 more printed at the end of the year.)

November 8th: "At Murray's sale 5267 copies sold to London booksellers."

November 8th: "At Murray's sale, 5,267 copies were sold to London booksellers."

1873.

January: Correcting the Climbing Plants paper for publication as a book.

January: Revising the Climbing Plants paper for publication as a book.

February 3rd: At work on "Cross-fertilisation."

February 3rd: Working on "Cross-fertilization."

February to September: Contributions to "Nature."

June 14th: "Began Drosera again."

June 14th: "Started Drosera again."

November 20th: Began "Descent of Man," Edition II.

November 20th: Started "Descent of Man," Edition II.

1874.

"Descent of Man," Edition II, in one volume, published (Preface dated September). "Coral Reefs," Edition II., published.

"Descent of Man," Edition II, in one volume, published (Preface dated September). "Coral Reefs," Edition II, published.

April 1st: Began "Insectivorous Plants."

April 1: Started “Insectivorous Plants.”

February to May: Contributed notes to "Nature."

1875.

July 2nd: "Insectivorous Plants" published (3000 copies); 2700 copies sold immediately.

July 2nd: "Insectivorous Plants" published (3000 copies); 2700 copies sold right away.

July 6th: "Correcting 2nd edition of 'Variation under Domestication.'" It was published in the autumn.

July 6th: "Revising the 2nd edition of 'Variation under Domestication.'" It was released in the fall.

September 1st (approximately): Began on "Cross and Self-Fertilisation."

September 1st (approximately): Started on "Cross and Self-Fertilization."

November: Vivisection Commission.

November: Animal Experimentation Commission.

1876.

May 5th: "Finished MS., first time over, of 'Cross and Self-Fertilisation.'"

May 5th: "Completed the manuscript for 'Cross and Self-Fertilisation,' first draft."

May to June: Correction of "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II. Wrote his Autobiographical Sketch.

May to June: Revised "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II. Wrote his Autobiographical Sketch.

May and November: Contributions to "Nature."

August 19th: First proofs of "Cross and Self-Fertilisation."

August 19th: First proofs of "Cross and Self-Fertilization."

November 10th: "Cross and Self-Fertilisation" published (1500 copies).

November 10th: "Cross and Self-Fertilization" published (1500 copies).

1877.

"All the early part of summer at work on 'Different Forms of Flowers.'"

"All the early part of summer working on 'Different Forms of Flowers.'"

July: Publication of "Different Forms of Flowers" (1250 copies). During the rest of the year at work on the bloom on leaves, movements of plants, "and a little on worms."

July: Publication of "Different Forms of Flowers" (1250 copies). During the rest of the year, working on the bloom on leaves, plant movements, "and a little on worms."

November: LL.D. at Cambridge. Second edition of "Fertilisation of Orchids" published. Contributions to "Nature," "Gardeners' Chronicle," and "Mind."

1878.

The whole year at work on movements of plants, and on the bloom on leaves.

The entire year focused on how plants move and the flowers on their leaves.

May: Contribution to "Nature." Second edition of "Different Forms of Flowers." Wrote prefatory letter to Kerner's "Flowers and their Unbidden Guests."

May: Contributed to "Nature." Released the second edition of "Different Forms of Flowers." Wrote a preface for Kerner's "Flowers and their Unbidden Guests."

1879.

The whole year at work on movements of plants, except for "about six weeks" in the spring and early summer given to the "Life of Erasmus Darwin," which was published in the autumn. Contributions to "Nature."

The entire year was spent working on plant movements, except for "about six weeks" in the spring and early summer dedicated to the "Life of Erasmus Darwin," which was published in the fall. Contributions to "Nature."

1880. "All spring finishing MS. of 'Power of Movement in Plants' and proof sheets." "Began in autumn on Worms." Prefatory notice written for Meldola's translation of Weismann's book.

1880. "All spring finishing MS. of 'Power of Movement in Plants' and proof sheets." "Started in the fall on Worms." Prefatory notice written for Meldola's translation of Weismann's book.

November 6th: 1500 copies of "Power of Movement" sold at Murray's sale. Contributions to "Nature."

1881.

During all the early part of the year at work on the "Worm book." Several contributions to "Nature."

During the early part of the year, I was working on the "Worm book." I also made several contributions to "Nature."

October 10th: The book on "Earthworms" published: 2000 copies sold at once.

October 10th: The book on "Earthworms" was published: 2000 copies sold immediately.

November: At work on the action of carbonate of ammonia on plants.

November: Working on how ammonium carbonate affects plants.

1882.

No entries in the Diary.

No entries in the journal.

February: At work correcting the sixth thousand of the "Earthworms."

February: At work correcting the sixth thousand copies of the "Earthworms."

March 6th and March 16th: Papers on the action of Carbonate of Ammonia on roots, etc., read at the Linnean Society.

March 6th and March 16th: Papers on the effect of Ammonium Carbonate on roots, etc., presented at the Linnean Society.

April 6th: Note to "Nature" on Dispersal of Bivalves.

April 6th: Note to "Nature" on the Spread of Bivalves.

April 18th: Van Dyck's paper on Syrian Dogs, with a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin, read before the Zoological Society.

April 18th: Van Dyck's paper on Syrian Dogs, featuring a preliminary note by Charles Darwin, was presented to the Zoological Society.

April 19th: Charles Darwin died at Down.

April 19th: Charles Darwin passed away in Down.

CHARLES DARWIN

CHAPTER 1.I.—AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL FRAGMENT, AND EARLY LETTERS.

1809-1842.

(Chapter I./1. In the process of removing the remainder of Mr. Darwin's books and papers from Down, the following autobiographical notes, written in 1838, came to light. They seem to us worth publishing—both as giving some new facts, and also as illustrating the interest which he clearly felt in his own development. Many words are omitted in the manuscript, and some names incorrectly spelled; the corrections which have been made are not always indicated.)

(Chapter I./1. While clearing out the remaining books and papers of Mr. Darwin from Down, we discovered some autobiographical notes he wrote in 1838. We believe these are worth publishing—not only because they provide new facts but also because they show the interest he had in his own development. Many words are missing in the manuscript, and some names are misspelled; the corrections made aren't always shown.)

My earliest recollection, the date of which I can approximately tell, and which must have been before I was four years old, was when sitting on Caroline's (Caroline Darwin) knee in the drawing room, whilst she was cutting an orange for me, a cow ran by the window which made me jump, so that I received a bad cut, of which I bear the scar to this day. Of this scene I recollect the place where I sat and the cause of the fright, but not the cut itself, and I think my memory is real, and not as often happens in similar cases, {derived} from hearing the thing often repeated, {when} one obtains so vivid an image, that it cannot be separated from memory: because I clearly remember which way the cow ran, which would not probably have been told me. My memory here is an obscure picture, in which from not recollecting any pain I am scarcely conscious of its reference to myself.

My earliest memory, which I can roughly date to when I was under four years old, is of sitting on Caroline's (Caroline Darwin) lap in the living room while she was cutting an orange for me. Suddenly, a cow ran past the window, startling me and causing a deep cut that has left a scar I still have today. I remember where I was sitting and what scared me, but not the actual cut. I believe my memory is genuine and not just influenced by hearing the story repeated often, which can create such vivid images that they feel like real memories. I distinctly remember the direction the cow ran, something I probably wouldn’t have been told. In this memory, it's a vague image, and because I can't recall any pain, I don't really feel it relates to me.

1813.

When I was four years and a half old I went to the sea, and stayed there some weeks. I remember many things, but with the exception of the maidservants (and these are not individualised) I recollect none of my family who were there. I remember either myself or Catherine being naughty, and being shut up in a room and trying to break the windows. I have an obscure picture of a house before my eyes, and of a neighbouring small shop, where the owner gave me one fig, but which to my great joy turned out to be two: this fig was given me that the man might kiss the maidservant. I remember a common walk to a kind of well, on the road to which was a cottage shaded with damascene (Chapter I./2. Damson is derived from Damascene; the fruit was formerly known as a "Damask Prune.") trees, inhabited by an old man, called a hermit, with white hair, who used to give us damascenes. I know not whether the damascenes, or the reverence and indistinct fear for this old man produced the greatest effect on my memory. I remember when going there crossing in the carriage a broad ford, and fear and astonishment of white foaming water has made a vivid impression. I think memory of events commences abruptly; that is, I remember these earliest things quite as clearly as others very much later in life, which were equally impressed on me. Some very early recollections are connected with fear at Parkfield and with poor Betty Harvey. I remember with horror her story of people being pushed into the canal by the towing rope, by going the wrong side of the horse. I had the greatest horror of this story—keen instinct against death. Some other recollections are those of vanity—namely, thinking that people were admiring me, in one instance for perseverance and another for boldness in climbing a low tree, and what is odder, a consciousness, as if instinctive, that I was vain, and contempt of myself. My supposed admirer was old Peter Haile the bricklayer, and the tree the mountain ash on the lawn. All my recollections seem to be connected most closely with myself; now Catherine (Catherine Darwin) seems to recollect scenes where others were the chief actors. When my mother died I was 8 1/2 years old, and {Catherine} one year less, yet she remembers all particulars and events of each day whilst I scarcely recollect anything (and so with very many other cases) except being sent for, the memory of going into her room, my father meeting me—crying afterwards. I recollect my mother's gown and scarcely anything of her appearance, except one or two walks with her. I have no distinct remembrance of any conversation, and those only of a very trivial nature. I remember her saying "if she did ask me to do something," which I said she had, "it was solely for my good."

When I was four and a half, I went to the sea and stayed there for a few weeks. I remember a lot of things, but except for the maids (and they’re not individual) I don’t recall any of my family who were there. I remember either myself or Catherine being naughty, getting locked in a room, and trying to break the windows. I have a vague picture of a house in my mind, and a small shop nearby, where the owner gave me one fig, which to my delight turned out to be two: he gave me this fig so he could kiss the maid. I remember a common walk to a kind of well, along the way was a cottage shaded by damascene trees, where an old man, called a hermit, with white hair, used to give us damascenes. I’m not sure if the damascenes or my respect and vague fear of this old man left a bigger impression on my memory. I remember crossing a wide ford in a carriage, and the fear and awe of the white foaming water left a strong impression. I think memories of events can start suddenly; I recall these early experiences just as clearly as later ones that were equally impactful. Some very early memories are connected to fear at Parkfield and with poor Betty Harvey. I remember with horror her story about people being pushed into the canal by the towing rope when they walked on the wrong side of the horse. I was terrified by this story—an intense instinct against death. Other memories are more about vanity—like thinking people admired me, once for my persistence and another time for my bravery in climbing a low tree. Oddly, I was also aware, almost instinctively, that I was being vain and looked down on myself. My supposed admirer was old Peter Haile the bricklayer, and the tree was the mountain ash on the lawn. All my memories seem to be closely tied to myself; now Catherine (Catherine Darwin) seems to remember scenes where others were the main characters. When my mother died, I was 8 and a half and Catherine was a year younger, yet she remembers all the details and events of each day, while I barely recall anything (and this is true for many other cases) except being called in, going into her room, and my father meeting me—he cried afterward. I remember my mother’s dress and hardly anything about her appearance, except for one or two walks with her. I have no clear memory of any conversations, just a few trivial things. I remember her saying, "if she did ask me to do something," which I said she had, "it was solely for my good."

Catherine remembers my mother crying, when she heard of my grandmother's death. Also when at Parkfield how Aunt Sarah and Aunt Kitty used to receive her. Susan, like me, only remembers affairs personal. It is sufficiently odd this {difference} in subjects remembered. Catherine says she does not remember the impression made upon her by external things, as scenery, but for things which she reads she has an excellent memory, i.e., for ideas. Now her sympathy being ideal, it is part of her character, and shows how easily her kind of memory was stamped, a vivid thought is repeated, a vivid impression forgotten.

Catherine remembers my mom crying when she found out about my grandma's death. She also recalls how Aunt Sarah and Aunt Kitty used to welcome her at Parkfield. Susan, like me, only remembers personal experiences. It’s pretty strange that we remember different things. Catherine says she doesn’t recall how external things, like scenery, made her feel, but she has an excellent memory for what she reads, meaning she remembers ideas well. Now, since her sympathy is more idealistic, it’s part of her nature, showing how easily her kind of memory was shaped—she repeats vivid thoughts but forgets strong impressions.

I remember obscurely the illumination after the battle of Waterloo, and the Militia exercising about that period, in the field opposite our house.

I vaguely remember the light after the battle of Waterloo and the Militia training around that time in the field across from our house.

1817.

1817

At 8 1/2 years old I went to Mr. Case's School. (Chapter I/3. A day-school at Shrewsbury kept by Rev. G. Case, minister of the Unitarian Chapel ("Life and Letters," Volume I., page 27 et seq.)) I remember how very much I was afraid of meeting the dogs in Barker Street, and how at school I could not get up my courage to fight. I was very timid by nature. I remember I took great delight at school in fishing for newts in the quarry pool. I had thus young formed a strong taste for collecting, chiefly seals, franks, etc., but also pebbles and minerals—one which was given me by some boy decided this taste. I believe shortly after this, or before, I had smattered in botany, and certainly when at Mr. Case's School I was very fond of gardening, and invented some great falsehoods about being able to colour crocuses as I liked. (Chapter I./4. The story is given in the "Life and Letters," I., page 28, the details being slightly different.) At this time I felt very strong friendship for some boys. It was soon after I began collecting stones, i.e., when 9 or 10, that I distinctly recollect the desire I had of being able to know something about every pebble in front of the hall door—it was my earliest and only geological aspiration at that time. I was in those days a very great story-teller—for the pure pleasure of exciting attention and surprise. I stole fruit and hid it for these same motives, and injured trees by barking them for similar ends. I scarcely ever went out walking without saying I had seen a pheasant or some strange bird (natural history taste); these lies, when not detected, I presume, excited my attention, as I recollect them vividly, not connected with shame, though some I do, but as something which by having produced a great effect on my mind, gave pleasure like a tragedy. I recollect when I was at Mr. Case's inventing a whole fabric to show how fond I was of speaking the TRUTH! My invention is still so vivid in my mind, that I could almost fancy it was true, did not memory of former shame tell me it was false. I have no particularly happy or unhappy recollections of this time or earlier periods of my life. I remember well a walk I took with a boy named Ford across some fields to a farmhouse on the Church Stretton road. I do not remember any mental pursuits excepting those of collecting stones, etc., gardening, and about this time often going with my father in his carriage, telling him of my lessons, and seeing game and other wild birds, which was a great delight to me. I was born a naturalist.

At 8 1/2 years old, I attended Mr. Case's School. (Chapter I/3. A day school in Shrewsbury run by Rev. G. Case, minister of the Unitarian Chapel ("Life and Letters," Volume I., page 27 et seq.)) I vividly remember being so afraid of encountering the dogs on Barker Street and how I couldn't muster the bravery to fight at school. I was naturally very timid. I remember enjoying fishing for newts in the quarry pool at school. Even at that young age, I developed a strong interest in collecting, mainly seals, stamps, and other items, as well as pebbles and minerals—one particular piece was given to me by another boy, which definitely sparked my passion. I believe that soon after, or possibly before, I dabbled in botany, and while at Mr. Case's School, I was really into gardening and even made up elaborate stories about being able to change the color of crocuses at will. (Chapter I./4. The details of the story can be found in "Life and Letters," I., page 28, with slight variations.) During this time, I felt a strong friendship for a few boys. It was right after I started collecting stones, around the age of 9 or 10, that I distinctly remember wanting to know everything about every pebble in front of the hall door—it was my first and only geological ambition then. Back in those days, I was quite the storyteller—mainly for the joy of grabbing people's attention and surprising them. I would steal fruit and hide it for the same reasons, and I damaged trees by barking them to create a scene. I hardly ever went for a walk without claiming I'd seen a pheasant or some exotic bird (my interest in natural history); these little lies, when not discovered, seemed to captivate my imagination, and I recall them vividly, not with shame—though some do cause me that feeling—but rather as experiences that impressed me greatly, like a dramatic tale. I remember while at Mr. Case's creating an entire story to illustrate my fondness for speaking the TRUTH! My creation is still so clear in my mind that I could almost convince myself it was real, if not for the memory of previous shame reminding me it was not. I don’t have any particularly happy or unhappy memories from this time or earlier phases of my life. I remember a walk I took with a boy named Ford across some fields to a farmhouse along the Church Stretton road. I don’t recall any intellectual pursuits besides collecting stones, gardening, and during this time, often riding with my father in his carriage, sharing what I learned in my lessons and enjoying seeing game and other wild birds, which delighted me. I was born a naturalist.

When I was 9 1/2 years old (July 1818) I went with Erasmus to see Liverpool: it has left no impressions on my mind, except most trifling ones—fear of the coach upsetting, a good dinner, and an extremely vague memory of ships.

When I was 9 and a half years old (July 1818), I went with Erasmus to see Liverpool. It didn't leave much of an impression on me, just a few trivial things—worrying about the coach tipping over, a nice dinner, and a really fuzzy memory of ships.

In Midsummer of this year I went to Dr. Butler's School. (Chapter I./5. Darwin entered Dr. Butler's school in Shrewsbury in the summer of 1818, and remained there till 1825 ("Life and Letters," I., page 30).) I well recollect the first going there, which oddly enough I cannot of going to Mr. Case's, the first school of all. I remember the year 1818 well, not from having first gone to a public school, but from writing those figures in my school book, accompanied with obscure thoughts, now fulfilled, whether I should recollect in future life that year.

In the summer of this year, I started attending Dr. Butler's School. (Chapter I./5. Darwin entered Dr. Butler's school in Shrewsbury in the summer of 1818 and stayed there until 1825 ("Life and Letters," I., page 30).) I clearly remember my first day there, although strangely, I can't recall my first day at Mr. Case's, which was my very first school. I remember the year 1818 not because it was my first experience at a public school, but because I wrote those numbers in my schoolbook, filled with vague thoughts that have now come true, wondering if I would remember that year later in life.

In September (1818) I was ill with the scarlet fever. I well remember the wretched feeling of being delirious.

In September (1818), I was sick with scarlet fever. I clearly remember the awful feeling of being delirious.

1819, July (10 1/2 years old).

Went to the sea at Plas Edwards and stayed there three weeks, which now appears to me like three months. (Chapter I./6. Plas Edwards, at Towyn, on the Welsh coast.) I remember a certain shady green road (where I saw a snake) and a waterfall, with a degree of pleasure, which must be connected with the pleasure from scenery, though not directly recognised as such. The sandy plain before the house has left a strong impression, which is obscurely connected with an indistinct remembrance of curious insects, probably a Cimex mottled with red, and Zygaena, the burnet-moth. I was at that time very passionate (when I swore like a trooper) and quarrelsome. The former passion has I think nearly wholly but slowly died away. When journeying there by stage coach I remember a recruiting officer (I think I should know his face to this day) at tea time, asking the maid-servant for toasted bread and butter. I was convulsed with laughter and thought it the quaintest and wittiest speech that ever passed from the mouth of man. Such is wit at 10 1/2 years old. The memory now flashes across me of the pleasure I had in the evening on a blowy day walking along the beach by myself and seeing the gulls and cormorants wending their way home in a wild and irregular course. Such poetic pleasures, felt so keenly in after years, I should not have expected so early in life.

I went to the sea at Plas Edwards and stayed there for three weeks, which now feels like three months. (Chapter I./6. Plas Edwards, at Towyn, on the Welsh coast.) I remember a certain shady green road (where I saw a snake) and a waterfall, which I recall with a kind of joy that must be linked to my appreciation for beautiful scenery, even if I didn’t fully recognize it then. The sandy area in front of the house made a strong impression on me, which is vaguely tied to a hazy memory of strange insects, likely a red-mottled Cimex and Zygaena, the burnet-moth. At that time, I was very passionate (swearing like a sailor) and argumentative. I think that passion has mostly faded away, albeit gradually. On my journey there by stagecoach, I remember a recruiting officer (I believe I’d recognize his face even now) during tea time, asking the maid for toasted bread and butter. I was in stitches from laughing and thought it was the quirkiest and funniest thing anyone had ever said. That’s what humor was like at 10 and a half. Now I remember how much I enjoyed walking along the beach by myself on a windy evening, watching the gulls and cormorants making their way home in a chaotic, zigzag pattern. I wouldn’t have expected to feel such poetic pleasures so early in life, but they resonate with me strongly in later years.

1820, July.

July 1820.

Went a riding tour (on old Dobbin) with Erasmus to Pistyll Rhiadr (Chapter I./7. Pistyll Rhiadr proceeds from Llyn Pen Rhiadr down the Llyfnant to the Dovey.); of this I recollect little, an indistinct picture of the fall, but I well remember my astonishment on hearing that fishes could jump up it.

Went on a riding trip (on old Dobbin) with Erasmus to Pistyll Rhiadr (Chapter I./7. Pistyll Rhiadr flows from Llyn Pen Rhiadr down the Llyfnant to the Dovey.); I remember very little about it, just a vague image of the waterfall, but I clearly recall my surprise when I heard that fish could leap up it.

(Chapter I./8. The autobiographical fragment here comes to an end. The next letters give some account of Darwin as an Edinburgh student. He has described ("Life and Letters," I., pages 35-45) his failure to be interested in the official teaching of the University, his horror at the operating theatre, and his gradually increasing dislike of medical study, which finally determined his leaving Edinburgh, and entering Cambridge with a view to taking Orders.)

(Chapter I./8. The autobiographical fragment here comes to an end. The next letters provide some insight into Darwin's time as a student in Edinburgh. He has described ("Life and Letters," I., pages 35-45) his lack of interest in the university's official teachings, his shock at the operating theater, and his growing aversion to medical studies, which ultimately led to his decision to leave Edinburgh and go to Cambridge with the intention of pursuing a career in the clergy.)

LETTER 1. TO R.W. DARWIN. Sunday Morning {Edinburgh, October, 1825}.

My dear Father

Dear Dad

As I suppose Erasmus (Erasmus Darwin) has given all the particulars of the journey, I will say no more about it, except that altogether it has cost me 7 pounds. We got into our lodgings yesterday evening, which are very comfortable and near the College. Our Landlady, by name Mrs. Mackay, is a nice clean old body—exceedingly civil and attentive. She lives in "11, Lothian Street, Edinburgh" (1/1. In a letter printed in the "Edinburgh Evening Despatch" of May 22nd, 1888, the writer suggested that a tablet should be placed on the house, 11, Lothian Street. This suggestion was carried out in 1888 by Mr. Ralph Richardson (Clerk of the Commissary Court, Edinburgh), who obtained permission from the proprietors to affix a tablet to the house, setting forth that Charles Darwin resided there as an Edinburgh University student. We are indebted to Mr. W.K. Dickson for obtaining for us this information, and to Mr. Ralph Richardson for kindly supplying us with particulars. See Mr. Richardson's Inaugural Address, "Trans. Edinb. Geol. Soc." 1894-95; also "Memorable Edinburgh Houses," by Wilmot Harrison, 1898.), and only four flights of steps from the ground-floor, which is very moderate to some other lodgings that we were nearly taking. The terms are 1 pound 6 shillings for two very nice and LIGHT bedrooms and a sitting-room; by the way, light bedrooms are very scarce articles in Edinburgh, since most of them are little holes in which there is neither air nor light. We called on Dr. Hanley the first morning, whom I think we never should have found, had it not been for a good-natured Dr. of Divinity who took us into his library and showed us a map, and gave us directions how to find him. Indeed, all the Scotchmen are so civil and attentive, that it is enough to make an Englishman ashamed of himself. I should think Dr. Butler or any other fat English Divine would take two utter strangers into his library and show them the way! When at last we found the Doctor, and having made all the proper speeches on both sides, we all three set out and walked all about the town, which we admire excessively; indeed Bridge Street is the most extraordinary thing I ever saw, and when we first looked over the sides, we could hardly believe our eyes, when instead of a fine river, we saw a stream of people. We spend all our mornings in promenading about the town, which we know pretty well, and in the evenings we go to the play to hear Miss Stephens (Probably Catherine Stephens), which is quite delightful; she is very popular here, being encored to such a degree, that she can hardly get on with the play. On Monday we are going to Der F (I do not know how to spell the rest of the word). (1/2. "Der F" is doubtless "Der Freischutz," which appeared in 1820, and of which a selection was given in London, under Weber's direction, in 1825. The last of Weber's compositions, "From Chindara's warbling fount," was written for Miss Stephens, who sang it to his accompaniment "the last time his fingers touched the key-board." (See "Dict. of Music," "Stephens" and "Weber.")) Before we got into our lodgings, we were staying at the Star Hotel in Princes St., where to my surprise I met with an old schoolfellow, whom I like very much; he is just come back from a walking tour in Switzerland and is now going to study for his {degree?} The introductory lectures begin next Wednesday, and we were matriculated for them on Saturday; we pay 10s., and write our names in a book, and the ceremony is finished; but the Library is not free to us till we get a ticket from a Professor. We just have been to Church and heard a sermon of only 20 minutes. I expected, from Sir Walter Scott's account, a soul-cutting discourse of 2 hours and a half.

As I assume Erasmus (Erasmus Darwin) has covered all the details of the trip, I’ll say no more about it, except that it has cost me a total of 7 pounds. We moved into our accommodations yesterday evening, which are very comfortable and close to the College. Our landlady, Mrs. Mackay, is a nice, tidy old lady—extremely polite and attentive. She lives at "11, Lothian Street, Edinburgh" (1/1. In a letter published in the "Edinburgh Evening Despatch" on May 22nd, 1888, the writer suggested a plaque be placed on the house at 11, Lothian Street. This suggestion was acted upon in 1888 by Mr. Ralph Richardson (Clerk of the Commissary Court, Edinburgh), who got permission from the owners to attach a plaque to the house, noting that Charles Darwin lived there as a student at Edinburgh University. We owe our thanks to Mr. W.K. Dickson for this information, and to Mr. Ralph Richardson for kindly providing us with details. See Mr. Richardson's Inaugural Address, "Trans. Edinb. Geol. Soc." 1894-95; also "Memorable Edinburgh Houses," by Wilmot Harrison, 1898.), and it's only four flights of stairs up from the ground floor, which is quite reasonable compared to some other places we nearly took. The cost is 1 pound 6 shillings for two lovely and LIGHT bedrooms and a sitting room; by the way, light bedrooms are really hard to find in Edinburgh since most of them are tiny holes with no air or light. The first morning, we visited Dr. Hanley, and I doubt we would have found him if it hadn’t been for a friendly Doctor of Divinity who took us into his library, showed us a map, and gave us directions to find him. In fact, all the Scots are so polite and helpful that it makes an Englishman feel a bit embarrassed. I can’t imagine Dr. Butler or any other overweight English clergy taking two complete strangers into his library and showing them the way! Once we finally found the Doctor—and after exchanging the usual pleasantries—we all three set out and explored the town, which we absolutely adore; in fact, Bridge Street is the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen, and when we first looked over the sides, we could hardly believe our eyes when we saw not a beautiful river, but a stream of people. We spend our mornings wandering around the town, which we’re getting to know pretty well, and in the evenings, we go to the theater to listen to Miss Stephens (Probably Catherine Stephens), which is simply delightful; she’s very popular here, getting encored so much that she can barely get through her performances. On Monday, we’re going to Der F (I’m not sure how to spell the rest of the title). (1/2. "Der F" is likely "Der Freischutz," which premiered in 1820, and excerpts were performed in London, under Weber’s direction, in 1825. The last of Weber’s compositions, "From Chindara's warbling fount," was written for Miss Stephens, who sang it to his accompaniment “the last time his fingers touched the keyboard.” (See "Dict. of Music," "Stephens" and "Weber.")) Before we settled into our lodgings, we had been at the Star Hotel on Princes St., where, to my surprise, I ran into an old school friend, whom I really like; he just got back from a hiking trip in Switzerland and is now going to study for his {degree?}. The introductory lectures start next Wednesday, and we were enrolled for them on Saturday; we pay 10s., write our names in a book, and that’s it; but we can’t access the library until we get a ticket from a Professor. We just came back from church, where the sermon lasted only 20 minutes. I had expected, based on Sir Walter Scott’s description, a soul-crushing sermon of 2 hours and a half.

I remain your affectionate son, C. DARWIN.

I am still your loving son, C. DARWIN.

LETTER 2. TO CAROLINE DARWIN. January 6th, 1826. Edinburgh.

Many thanks for your very entertaining letter, which was a great relief after hearing a long stupid lecture from Duncan on Materia Medica, but as you know nothing either of the Lectures or Lecturers, I will give you a short account of them. Dr. Duncan is so very learned that his wisdom has left no room for his sense, and he lectures, as I have already said, on the Materia Medica, which cannot be translated into any word expressive enough of its stupidity. These few last mornings, however, he has shown signs of improvement, and I hope he will "go on as well as can be expected." His lectures begin at eight in the morning. Dr. Hope begins at ten o'clock, and I like both him and his lectures VERY much (after which Erasmus goes to "Mr. Sizars on Anatomy," who is a charming Lecturer). At 12 the Hospital, after which I attend Monro on Anatomy. I dislike him and his lectures so much, that I cannot speak with decency about them. Thrice a week we have what is called Clinical lectures, which means lectures on the sick people in the Hospital—these I like very much. I said this account should be short, but I am afraid it has been too long, like the lectures themselves.

Thanks so much for your entertaining letter; it was a huge relief after sitting through a long, dull lecture from Duncan on Materia Medica. Since you’re not familiar with the lectures or the lecturers, I’ll give you a quick overview. Dr. Duncan is so knowledgeable that he seems to have lost all common sense, and his talks on Materia Medica are pretty much untranslatable in terms of their boredom. However, he has shown some signs of improvement these last few mornings, and I hope he’ll "keep it up as well as can be expected." His lectures start at eight in the morning. Dr. Hope’s talks kick off at ten o’clock, and I like both him and his lectures A LOT (after which Erasmus goes to "Mr. Sizars on Anatomy," who is a delightful lecturer). At noon, there’s the Hospital, and then I attend Monro on Anatomy. I dislike him and his lectures so much that it’s hard to say anything nice about them. Three times a week, we have what's called Clinical lectures, which are about the patients in the Hospital—those I enjoy a lot. I promised this would be short, but I'm afraid it’s a bit too long, just like the lectures themselves.

I will be a good boy and tell something about Johnson again (not but what I am very much surprised that Papa should so forget himself as call me, a Collegian in the University of Edinburgh, a boy). He has changed his lodgings for the third time; he has got very cheap ones, but I am afraid it will not answer, for they must make up by cheating. I hope you like Erasmus' official news, he means to begin every letter so. You mentioned in your letter that Emma was staying with you: if she is not gone, ask her to tell Jos that I have not succeeded in getting any titanium, but that I will try again...I want to know how old I shall be next birthday—I believe 17, and if so, I shall be forced to go abroad for one year, since it is necessary that I shall have completed my 21st year before I take my degree. Now you have no business to be frowning and puzzling over this letter, for I did not promise to write a good hand to you.

I’ll be a good kid and share something about Johnson again (although I’m quite surprised that Dad would forget himself and call me, a student at the University of Edinburgh, a kid). He’s moved his place for the third time; he found some really cheap accommodations, but I’m worried it won’t work out since they probably cut corners. I hope you’re enjoying Erasmus’ official updates; he plans to start every letter that way. You mentioned in your letter that Emma was staying with you: if she’s still there, please ask her to tell Jos that I haven’t managed to get any titanium, but I’ll keep trying...I want to know how old I’ll be on my next birthday—I think it’s 17, and if that’s right, I’ll have to go abroad for a year since it’s required that I finish my 21st year before I can graduate. Now, you have no reason to be frowning and stressing over this letter, because I didn’t promise to write perfectly for you.

LETTER 3. TO J.S. HENSLOW.

(3/1. Extracts from Darwin's letters to Henslow were read before the Cambridge Philosophical Society on November 16th, 1835. Some of the letters were subsequently printed, in an 8vo pamphlet of 31 pages, dated December 1st, 1835, for private distribution among the members of the Society. A German translation by W. Preyer appeared in the "Deutsche Rundschau," June 1891.)

(3/1. Excerpts from Darwin's letters to Henslow were presented to the Cambridge Philosophical Society on November 16, 1835. Some of the letters were later published in an 8vo pamphlet of 31 pages, dated December 1, 1835, for private distribution among the Society's members. A German translation by W. Preyer was published in the "Deutsche Rundschau," June 1891.)

{15th August, 1832. Monte Video.}

{August 15, 1832. Montevideo.}

We are now beating up the Rio Plata, and I take the opportunity of beginning a letter to you. I did not send off the specimens from Rio Janeiro, as I grudged the time it would take to pack them up. They are now ready to be sent off and most probably go by this packet. If so they go to Falmouth (where Fitz-Roy has made arrangements) and so will not trouble your brother's agent in London. When I left England I was not fully aware how essential a kindness you offered me when you undertook to receive my boxes. I do not know what I should do without such head-quarters. And now for an apologetical prose about my collection: I am afraid you will say it is very small, but I have not been idle, and you must recollect what a very small show hundreds of species make. The box contains a good many geological specimens; I am well aware that the greater number are too small. But I maintain that no person has a right to accuse me, till he has tried carrying rocks under a tropical sun. I have endeavoured to get specimens of every variety of rock, and have written notes upon all. If you think it worth your while to examine any of them I shall be very glad of some mineralogical information, especially on any numbers between 1 and 254 which include Santiago rocks. By my catalogue I shall know which you may refer to. As for my plants, "pudet pigetque mihi." All I can say is that when objects are present which I can observe and particularise about, I cannot summon resolution to collect when I know nothing.

We are currently navigating the Rio Plata, and I’m taking this chance to start a letter to you. I didn’t send the specimens from Rio de Janeiro because I dreaded the time it would take to pack them. They are now ready to be sent and will most likely go with this packet. If that’s the case, they will go to Falmouth (where Fitz-Roy has made arrangements) and won’t inconvenience your brother’s agent in London. When I left England, I didn’t fully appreciate how kind you were to offer to receive my boxes. I don’t know what I would do without such a base of operations. Now, let me apologize for my collection: I’m afraid you’ll think it’s quite small, but I haven't been idle, and you must remember how little a handful of species shows. The box holds quite a few geological specimens; I know most of them are too small. However, I insist that no one has the right to criticize me until they’ve tried carrying rocks under a tropical sun. I've tried to gather specimens of every type of rock and have taken notes on all of them. If you think it’s worth your time to examine any of them, I would appreciate any mineralogical information, especially on any numbers between 1 and 254 that include Santiago rocks. With my catalog, I can refer you to which ones. As for my plants, "pudet pigetque mihi." All I can say is that when there are objects present that I can observe and learn about, I can't bring myself to collect when I have no knowledge.

It is positively distressing to walk in the glorious forest amidst such treasures and feel they are all thrown away upon one. My collection from the Abrolhos is interesting, as I suspect it nearly contains the whole flowering vegetation—and indeed from extreme sterility the same may almost be said of Santiago. I have sent home four bottles with animals in spirits, I have three more, but would not send them till I had a fourth. I shall be anxious to hear how they fare. I made an enormous collection of Arachnidae at Rio, also a good many small beetles in pill boxes, but it is not the best time of year for the latter. Amongst the lower animals nothing has so much interested me as finding two species of elegantly coloured true Planaria inhabiting the dewy forest! The false relation they bear to snails is the most extraordinary thing of the kind I have ever seen. In the same genus (or more truly family) some of the marine species possess an organisation so marvellous that I can scarcely credit my eyesight. Every one has heard of the discoloured streaks of water in the equatorial regions. One I examined was owing to the presence of such minute Oscillariae that in each square inch of surface there must have been at least one hundred thousand present. After this I had better be silent, for you will think me a Baron Munchausen amongst naturalists. Most assuredly I might collect a far greater number of specimens of Invertebrate animals if I took less time over each; but I have come to the conclusion that two animals with their original colour and shape noted down will be more valuable to naturalists than six with only dates and place. I hope you will send me your criticisms about my collection; and it will be my endeavour that nothing you say shall be lost on me. I would send home my writings with my specimens, only I find I have so repeatedly occasion to refer back that it would be a serious loss to me. I cannot conclude about my collection without adding that I implicitly trust in your keeping an exact account against all the expense of boxes, etc., etc. At this present minute we are at anchor in the mouth of the river, and such a strange scene as it is. Everything is in flames—the sky with lightning, the water with luminous particles, and even the very masts are pointed with a blue flame. I expect great interest in scouring over the plains of Monte Video, yet I look back with regret to the Tropics, that magic lure to all naturalists. The delight of sitting on a decaying trunk amidst the quiet gloom of the forest is unspeakable and never to be forgotten. How often have I then wished for you. When I see a banana I well recollect admiring them with you in Cambridge—little did I then think how soon I should eat their fruit.

It’s really upsetting to walk through the beautiful forest filled with such treasures and feel like they’re all just for me. My collection from the Abrolhos is intriguing, as I think it nearly includes all the flowering plants—and actually, you could say the same about Santiago due to its extreme barrenness. I’ve sent home four bottles with animals preserved in spirits; I have three more but didn’t want to send them until I had a fourth. I’m eager to hear how they are doing. I made a huge collection of arachnids in Rio, as well as quite a few small beetles in pillboxes, although it’s not the best time of year for those. Out of all the lower animals, what fascinated me the most was finding two species of beautifully colored true Planaria living in the dewy forest! The way they’re related to snails is the oddest thing I’ve ever come across. In the same group (or more accurately, family), some marine species have such incredible structures that I can hardly believe my eyes. Everyone has heard about the discolored patches of water in equatorial regions. One I looked at was caused by the presence of such tiny Oscillariae that there must have been at least one hundred thousand in each square inch of surface. After this, I should probably stop talking, or you’ll think I’m making these things up like Baron Munchausen among naturalists. I could definitely collect a lot more invertebrates if I spent less time on each one, but I’ve come to realize that describing two animals with their original colors and shapes will be more helpful to naturalists than six with just dates and locations. I hope you’ll give me your feedback on my collection, and I’ll make sure to take your suggestions to heart. I’d send my writings home with my specimens, but I find I often need to refer back to them, which would be a huge loss for me. I can’t finish talking about my collection without saying how much I trust you to keep an exact account of all the expenses for boxes, etc. Right now, we’re anchored at the mouth of the river, and it's such a strange scene. Everything is lit up—the sky with lightning, the water with glowing particles, and even the masts are tipped with blue flames. I’m looking forward to exploring the plains of Monte Video, yet I can’t help but feel nostalgic about the Tropics, which are such a magical draw for all naturalists. The joy of sitting on a decaying trunk in the quiet gloom of the forest is indescribable and unforgettable. How often have I wished you were there with me. When I see a banana, I can clearly remember admiring them with you in Cambridge—back then, I never imagined how soon I’d be eating their fruit.

August 15th. In a few days the box will go by the "Emulous" packet (Capt. Cooke) to Falmouth and will be forwarded to you. This letter goes the same way, so that if in course of due time you do not receive the box, will you be kind enough to write to Falmouth? We have been here (Monte Video) for some time; but owing to bad weather and continual fighting on shore, we have scarcely ever been able to walk in the country. I have collected during the last month nothing, but to-day I have been out and returned like Noah's Ark with animals of all sorts. I have to-day to my astonishment found two Planariae living under dry stones: ask L. Jenyns if he has ever heard of this fact. I also found a most curious snail, and spiders, beetles, snakes, scorpions ad libitum, and to conclude shot a Cavia weighing a cwt.—On Friday we sail for the Rio Negro, and then will commence our real wild work. I look forward with dread to the wet stormy regions of the south, but after so much pleasure I must put up with some sea-sickness and misery.

August 15th. In a few days, the box will go by the "Emulous" packet (Capt. Cooke) to Falmouth and will be sent to you. This letter is going the same way, so if you don’t receive the box in due time, could you please write to Falmouth? We have been here (Monte Video) for a while, but due to bad weather and constant fighting on shore, we hardly ever get to walk in the countryside. I haven't collected anything in the last month, but today I went out and came back like Noah's Ark with all sorts of animals. To my surprise, I found two Planariae living under dry stones today: ask L. Jenyns if he’s ever heard of this. I also discovered a really strange snail, along with plenty of spiders, beetles, snakes, scorpions, and even shot a Cavia weighing a hundredweight. On Friday, we’ll sail for the Rio Negro, and then we’ll begin our real wilderness work. I’m dreading the wet, stormy regions of the south, but after so much enjoyment, I guess I have to deal with some seasickness and discomfort.

LETTER 4. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Monte Video, 24th November 1832.

LETTER 4. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Monte Video, November 24, 1832.

We arrived here on the 24th of October, after our first cruise on the coast of Patagonia. North of the Rio Negro we fell in with some little schooners employed in sealing: to save the loss of time in surveying the intricate mass of banks, Capt. Fitz-Roy has hired two of them and has put officers on them. It took us nearly a month fitting them out; as soon as this was finished we came back here, and are now preparing for a long cruise to the south. I expect to find the wild mountainous country of Terra del Fuego very interesting, and after the coast of Patagonia I shall thoroughly enjoy it.—I had hoped for the credit of Dame Nature, no such country as this last existed; in sad reality we coasted along 240 miles of sand hillocks; I never knew before, what a horrid ugly object a sand hillock is. The famed country of the Rio Plata in my opinion is not much better: an enormous brackish river, bounded by an interminable green plain is enough to make any naturalist groan. So Hurrah for Cape Horn and the Land of Storms. Now that I have had my growl out, which is a privilege sailors take on all occasions, I will turn the tables and give an account of my doing in Nat. History. I must have one more growl: by ill luck the French Government has sent one of its collectors to the Rio Negro, where he has been working for the last six months, and is now gone round the Horn. So that I am very selfishly afraid he will get the cream of all the good things before me. As I have nobody to talk to about my luck and ill luck in collecting, I am determined to vent it all upon you. I have been very lucky with fossil bones; I have fragments of at least 6 distinct animals: as many of them are teeth, I trust, shattered and rolled as they have been, they will be recognised. I have paid all the attention I am capable of to their geological site; but of course it is too long a story for here. 1st, I have the tarsi and metatarsi very perfect of a Cavia; 2nd, the upper jaw and head of some very large animal with four square hollow molars and the head greatly protruded in front. I at first thought it belonged either to the Megalonyx or Megatherium (4/1). The animal may probably have been Grypotherium Darwini, Ow. The osseous plates mentioned below must have belonged to one of the Glyptodontidae, and not to Megatherium. We are indebted to Mr. Kerr for calling our attention to a passage in Buckland's "Bridgewater Treatise" (Volume II., page 20, note), where bony armour is ascribed to Megatherium.); in confirmation of this in the same formation I found a large surface of the osseous polygonal plates, which "late observations" (what are they?) show belong to the Megatherium. Immediately I saw this I thought they must belong to an enormous armadillo, living species of which genus are so abundant here. 3rd, The lower jaw of some large animal which, from the molar teeth, I should think belonged to the Edentata; 4th, some large molar teeth which in some respects would seem to belong to an enormous rodent; 5th, also some smaller teeth belonging to the same order. If it interests you sufficiently to unpack them, I shall be very curious to hear something about them. Care must be taken in this case not to confuse the tallies. They are mingled with marine shells which appear to me identical with what now exist. But since they were deposited in their beds several geological changes have taken place in the country. So much for the dead, and now for the living: there is a poor specimen of a bird which to my unornithological eyes appears to be a happy mixture of a lark, pigeon and snipe (No. 710). Mr. MacLeay himself never imagined such an inosculating creature: I suppose it will turn out to be some well-known bird, although it has quite baffled me. I have taken some interesting Amphibia; a new Trigonocephalus beautifully connecting in its habits Crotalus and the Viperidae, and plenty of new (as far as my knowledge goes) saurians. As for one little toad, I hope it may be new, that it may be christened "diabolicus." Milton must allude to this very individual when he talks of "squat like a toad" (4/2. "...him {Satan} there they {Ithuriel and Zephon} found, Squat like a toad, close at the ear of Eve" ("Paradise Lost," Book IV., line 800).

We got here on October 24th after our first cruise along the coast of Patagonia. North of the Rio Negro, we came across some small schooners used for sealing. To save time navigating through the complicated network of banks, Captain Fitz-Roy has hired two of them and assigned officers to each. It took us almost a month to get them ready; as soon as we finished, we returned here and are now preparing for a long cruise to the south. I expect to find the wild mountainous areas of Tierra del Fuego very interesting, and after the coast of Patagonia, I will really enjoy it. I had hoped that the glory of nature would deliver a better landscape, but sadly, we sailed along 240 miles of sandy hills; I never realized before how ugly a sand hill can be. In my opinion, the famous region of the Rio Plata isn't much better: an enormous brackish river bordered by endless green plains is enough to make any naturalist groan. So, cheers to Cape Horn and the Land of Storms! Now that I’ve gotten my complaints out, which is a privilege sailors take whenever they want, I’ll turn to my experiences in Natural History. I must complain one more time: unfortunately, the French Government has sent one of its collectors to the Rio Negro, where he has been working for the last six months and is now around Cape Horn. So, I selfishly fear he will scoop up all the best finds before I do. Since I have nobody to discuss my luck and misfortune in collecting with, I’m determined to vent it all to you. I've been really lucky with fossil bones; I have bits from at least six different animals. Since many of them are teeth, I hope they’ll be recognizable, even though they are shattered and tumbled. I’ve given my full attention to their geological location; however, it’s a long story for here. First, I have the nearly complete tarsi and metatarsi of a Cavia; second, the upper jaw and skull of a very large animal with four square hollow molars and a greatly protruding front. At first, I thought it belonged to either the Megalonyx or Megatherium (4/1). The animal may likely be Grypotherium Darwini, Ow. The bony plates mentioned below must belong to one of the Glyptodontidae, not to Megatherium. We owe Mr. Kerr for pointing out a passage in Buckland's "Bridgewater Treatise" (Volume II., page 20, note), which attributes bony armor to Megatherium. In support of this, I found a large area of the bony polygonal plates, which "recent observations" (what are they?) show belong to the Megatherium. As soon as I saw this, I thought they must belong to a giant armadillo, as living species of this genus are very common here. Third, the lower jaw of some large animal which, from the molar teeth, I would guess belonged to the Edentata; fourth, some large molar teeth that might belong to an enormous rodent in some respects; fifth, smaller teeth belonging to the same order. If you're interested enough to unpack them, I’d be very curious to hear what you find out about them. Care must be taken not to mix up the labels; they're mixed in with marine shells that seem identical to what exists now. However, since they were deposited in their beds, several geological changes have occurred in the country. That's it for the fossils, now for the living: there's a poor specimen of a bird that, to my untrained eyes, seems like a strange mix of a lark, pigeon, and snipe (No. 710). Mr. MacLeay himself never imagined such a blended creature; I assume it will turn out to be a well-known bird, even though it has completely puzzled me. I've collected some interesting amphibians; a new Trigonocephalus beautifully links the habits of Crotalus and the Viperidae, along with several new (as far as I know) lizards. As for one little toad, I hope it’s new and gets named "diabolicus." Milton must be referring to this very creature when he talks about "squat like a toad" (4/2. "...him {Satan} there they {Ithuriel and Zephon} found, Squat like a toad, close at the ear of Eve" ("Paradise Lost," Book IV., line 800).

"Formerly Milton's "Paradise Lost" had been my chief favourite, and in my excursions during the voyage of the 'Beagle,' when I could take only a single volume, I always chose Milton" ("Autobiography," page 69).); its colours are by Werner (4/3. Werner's "Nomenclature of Colours," Edinburgh, 1821.) ink black, vermilion red and buff orange. It has been a splendid cruise for me in Nat. History. Amongst the Pelagic Crustacea, some new and curious genera. In the Zoophytes some interesting animals. As for one Flustra, if I had not the specimen to back me up nobody would believe in its most anomalous structure. But as for novelty all this is nothing to a family of pelagic animals which at first sight appear like Medusae but are really highly organised. I have examined them repeatedly, and certainly from their structure it would be impossible to place them in any existing order. Perhaps Salpa is the nearest animal, although the transparency of the body is nearly the only character they have in common. I think the dried plants nearly contain all which were then (Bahia Blanca) flowering. All the specimens will be packed in casks. I think there will be three (before sending this letter I will specify dates, etc., etc.). I am afraid you will groan or rather the floor of the lecture room will when the casks arrive. Without you I should be utterly undone. The small cask contains fish: will you open it to see how the spirit has stood the evaporation of the Tropics. On board the ship everything goes on as well as possible; the only drawback is the fearful length of time between this and the day of our return. I do not see any limits to it. One year is nearly completed and the second will be so, before we even leave the east coast of S. America. And then our voyage may be said really to have commenced. I know not how I shall be able to endure it. The frequency with which I think of all the happy hours I have spent at Shrewsbury and Cambridge is rather ominous—I trust everything to time and fate and will feel my way as I go on.

"Previously, Milton's "Paradise Lost" was my favorite book, and during my journeys on the 'Beagle,' when I could only bring one volume, I always picked Milton" ("Autobiography," page 69). Its colors are from Werner (4/3. Werner's "Nomenclature of Colours," Edinburgh, 1821.): ink black, vermilion red, and buff orange. This has been an incredible cruise for me in Natural History. Among the pelagic crustaceans, I've found some new and interesting genera. In the zoophytes, there are some fascinating animals. As for one Flustra, if I didn’t have the specimen to support my claim, nobody would believe its bizarre structure. But in terms of novelty, this is nothing compared to a family of pelagic animals that at first glance look like Medusae but are actually highly organized. I have examined them repeatedly, and based on their structure, it would be impossible to classify them into any existing order. Salpa might be the closest animal, though the transparency of their bodies is nearly the only characteristic they share. I believe the dried plants almost include everything that was flowering back then (Bahia Blanca). All the specimens will be packed in barrels. I think there will be three (before I send this letter, I’ll specify dates, etc., etc.). I'm afraid you'll groan—or rather, the floor of the lecture room will—when the barrels arrive. Without you, I would be completely lost. The small barrel contains fish: will you open it to check how well the spirit has withstood the evaporation of the tropics? On board the ship, everything is going as well as can be expected; the only downside is the incredibly long wait until we return. I see no end in sight. One year is nearly over, and the second will go by before we even leave the east coast of South America. At that point, we could say our voyage has truly begun. I don’t know how I’ll manage to endure it. The frequency with which I think of all the happy times I spent in Shrewsbury and Cambridge is somewhat foreboding—I’m putting my trust in time and fate and will take things as they come."

November 24th.—We have been at Buenos Ayres for a week; it is a fine large city, but such a country, everything is mud, you can go nowhere, you can do nothing for mud. In the city I obtained much information about the banks of the Uruguay—I hear of limestone with shells, and beds of shells in every direction. I hope when we winter in the Plata to have a most interesting geological excursion into that country: I purchased fragments (Nos. 837-8) of some enormous bones, which I was assured belonged to the former giants!! I also procured some seeds—I do not know whether they are worth your accepting; if you think so I will get some more. They are in the box. I have sent to you by the "Duke of York" packet, commanded by Lieut. Snell, to Falmouth two large casks containing fossil bones, a small cask with fish and a box containing skins, spirit bottle, etc., and pill-boxes with beetles. Would you be kind enough to open these latter as they are apt to become mouldy. With the exception of the bones the rest of my collection looks very scanty. Recollect how great a proportion of time is spent at sea. I am always anxious to hear in what state the things come and any criticisms about quantity or kind of specimens. In the smaller cask is part of a large head, the anterior portions of which are in the other large one. The packet has arrived and I am in a great bustle. You will not hear from me for some months.

November 24th.—We've been in Buenos Aires for a week; it’s a big, beautiful city, but the country is all mud. You can't go anywhere or do anything because of it. In the city, I gathered a lot of information about the banks of the Uruguay—I heard about limestone with shells and beds of shells everywhere. I hope that when we spend the winter in the Plata, we'll have a really interesting geological trip into that area. I bought some pieces (Nos. 837-8) of huge bones that I was told belonged to ancient giants!! I also got some seeds—I’m not sure if they’re worth you accepting; if you think so, I can get more. They’re in the box. I have sent you by the "Duke of York" packet, commanded by Lieut. Snell, to Falmouth, two large barrels with fossil bones, a small barrel with fish, and a box with skins, a spirit bottle, etc., as well as pill-boxes with beetles. Could you please open those pill-boxes since they’re likely to get moldy? Aside from the bones, my collection seems pretty limited. Remember how much time we spend at sea. I'm always eager to know what condition the items arrive in and any feedback on the quantity or type of specimens. In the smaller barrel is part of a large head, while the front parts are in the other large barrel. The packet has arrived, and I’m in quite a rush. You won’t hear from me for a few months.

LETTER 5. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Valparaiso, July 24th 1834.

LETTER 5. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Valparaiso, July 24, 1834.

A box has just arrived in which were two of your most kind and affectionate letters. You do not know how happy they have made me. One is dated December 15th, 1833, the other January 15th of the same year! By what fatality it did not arrive sooner I cannot conjecture; I regret it much, for it contains the information I most wanted, about manner of packing, etc., etc.: roots with specimens of plants, etc., etc. This I suppose was written after the reception of my first cargo of specimens. Not having heard from you until March of this year I really began to think that my collections were so poor, that you were puzzled what to say; the case is now quite on the opposite tack; for you are guilty of exciting all my vain feelings to a most comfortable pitch; if hard work will atone for these thoughts, I vow it shall not be spared. It is rather late, but I will allude to some remarks in the January letter; you advise me to send home duplicates of my notes; I have been aware of the advantage of doing so; but then at sea to this day, I am invariably sick, excepting on the finest days, at which times with pelagic animals around me, I could never bring myself to the task—on shore the most prudent person could hardly expect such a sacrifice of time. My notes are becoming bulky. I have about 600 small quarto pages full; about half of this is Geology—the other imperfect descriptions of animals; with the latter I make it a rule only to describe those parts or facts, which cannot be seen in specimens in spirits. I keep my private Journal distinct from the above. (N.B. this letter is a most untidy one, but my mind is untidy with joy; it is your fault, so you must take the consequences.) With respect to the land Planariae, unquestionably they are not molluscous animals. I read your letters last night, this morning I took a little walk; by a curious coincidence, I found a new white species of Planaria, and a new to me Vaginulus (third species which I have found in S. America) of Cuvier. Amongst the marine mollusques I have seen a good many genera, and at Rio found one quite new one. With respect to the December letter, I am very glad to hear the four casks arrived safe; since which time you have received another cargo, with the bird skins about which you did not understand me. Have any of the B. Ayrean seeds produced plants? From the Falklands I acknowledged a box and letter from you; with the letter were a few seeds from Patagonia. At present I have specimens enough to make a heavy cargo, but shall wait as much longer as possible, because opportunities are not now so good as before. I have just got scent of some fossil bones of a MAMMOTH; what they may be I do not know, but if gold or galloping will get them they shall be mine. You tell me you like hearing how I am going on and what doing, and you well may imagine how much I enjoy speaking to any one upon subjects which I am always thinking about, but never have any one to talk to {about}. After leaving the Falklands we proceeded to the Rio S. Cruz, following up the river till within twenty miles of the Cordilleras. Unfortunately want of provisions compelled us to return. This expedition was most important to me as it was a transverse section of the great Patagonian formation. I conjecture (an accurate examination of fossils may possibly determine the point) that the main bed is somewhere about the Miocene period (using Mr. Lyell's expression); I judge from what I have seen of the present shells of Patagonia. This bed contains an ENORMOUS field of lava. This is of some interest, as being a rude approximation to the age of the volcanic part of the great range of the Andes. Long before this it existed as a slate and porphyritic line of hills. I have collected a tolerable quantity of information respecting the period and forms of elevations of these plains. I think these will be interesting to Mr. Lyell; I had deferred reading his third volume till my return: you may guess how much pleasure it gave me; some of his woodcuts came so exactly into play that I have only to refer to them instead of redrawing similar ones. I had my barometer with me, I only wish I had used it more in these plains. The valley of S. Cruz appears to me a very curious one; at first it quite baffled me. I believe I can show good reasons for supposing it to have been once a northern straits like to that of Magellan. When I return to England you will have some hard work in winnowing my Geology; what little I know I have learnt in such a curious fashion that I often feel very doubtful about the number of grains {of value?}. Whatever number they may turn out, I have enjoyed extreme pleasure in collecting them. In T. del Fuego I collected and examined some corallines; I have observed one fact which quite startled me: it is that in the genus Sertularia (taken in its most restricted form as {used} by Lamoureux) and in two species which, excluding comparative expressions, I should find much difficulty in describing as different, the polypi quite and essentially differed in all their most important and evident parts of structure. I have already seen enough to be convinced that the present families of corallines as arranged by Lamarck, Cuvier, etc., are highly artificial. It appears that they are in the same state {in} which shells were when Linnaeus left them for Cuvier to rearrange. I do so wish I was a better hand at dissecting, I find I can do very little in the minute parts of structure; I am forced to take a very rough examination as a type for different classes of structure. It is most extraordinary I can nowhere see in my books one single description of the polypus of any one coralline excepting Alcyonium Lobularia of Savigny. I found a curious little stony Cellaria (5/1. Cellaria, a genus of Bryozoa, placed in the section Flustrina of the Suborder Chilostomata.) (a new genus) each cell provided with long toothed bristle, these are capable of various and rapid motions. This motion is often simultaneous, and can be produced by irritation. This fact, as far as I can see, is quite isolated in the history of zoophytes (excepting the Flustra with an organ like a vulture's head); it points out a much more intimate relation between the polypi than Lamarck is willing to allow. I forgot whether I mentioned having seen something of the manner of propagation in that most ambiguous family, the corallines; I feel pretty well convinced if they are not plants they are not zoophytes. The "gemmule" of a Halimeda contained several articulations united, ready to burst their envelope, and become attached to some basis. I believe in zoophytes universally the gemmule produces a single polypus, which afterwards or at the same time grows with its cell or single articulation.

A box just arrived with two of your most kind and affectionate letters inside. You can’t imagine how happy they made me. One is dated December 15, 1833, and the other January 15 of the same year! I can't understand why it didn’t arrive sooner; I really regret it, as it contains the information I wanted most about packing methods, etc.: roots with specimens of plants, etc., etc. I assume this was written after you received my first shipment of specimens. Not hearing from you until March of this year made me think my collections were so poor that you were unsure of what to say; the situation is now quite the opposite, as you’ve stirred all my vain feelings to a comfortable high. If hard work will atone for these feelings, I promise I won’t hold back. It’s a bit late, but I want to mention some comments from the January letter; you suggest I send home duplicates of my notes. I’ve been aware of the benefits of doing so; however, at sea, I’ve been consistently seasick except on the nicest days, and during those times with pelagic animals around, I could never motivate myself to work. On land, even the most sensible person wouldn’t expect such a sacrifice of time. My notes are getting bulky. I have about 600 small quarto pages filled; about half of that is about Geology, and the other half consists of unfinished descriptions of animals. For the latter, I only describe parts or facts that aren’t visible in specimens preserved in spirits. I keep my private journal separate from that. (N.B. This letter is quite messy, but my mind is messy with joy; it’s your fault, so you must face the consequences.) Regarding the land Planariae, they are definitely not mollusks. I read your letters last night and took a little walk this morning; by a curious coincidence, I found a new white species of Planaria and a new-to-me Vaginulus (the third species I've found in South America) from Cuvier. Among the marine mollusks, I’ve seen quite a few genera, and in Rio, I found one completely new one. As for the December letter, I’m very glad to hear that the four casks arrived safely; since then, you’ve received another shipment with the bird skins that I didn’t explain properly. Have any of the B. Ayrean seeds produced plants? From the Falklands, I acknowledged a box and letter from you; included were a few seeds from Patagonia. Right now, I have enough specimens to make a heavy shipment, but I’ll wait as long as possible because opportunities aren’t as good as they were before. I’ve just caught wind of some fossil mammoth bones; I don’t know what they are, but if gold or a fast gallop can acquire them, they’ll be mine. You say you like hearing about my progress and what I’m doing, and you can imagine how much I enjoy discussing the topics I’m constantly thinking about, but have no one to talk to about them. After leaving the Falklands, we headed to the Rio S. Cruz, following the river until we were about twenty miles from the Cordilleras. Unfortunately, a lack of provisions forced us to turn back. This expedition was crucial for me as it provided a cross-section of the major Patagonian formation. I suspect (an accurate examination of fossils may confirm this) that the main layer is from the Miocene period (using Mr. Lyell’s term); I judge this based on what I’ve seen of the current shells in Patagonia. This layer holds a HUGE field of lava. This is of some interest, as it gives a rough idea of the age of the volcanic part of the great Andes range. Long before this, it existed as a slate and porphyritic line of hills. I’ve gathered quite a bit of information about the time and forms of uplift in these plains. I think Mr. Lyell will find this interesting; I postponed reading his third volume until my return, and you can guess how much pleasure it gave me; some of his illustrations fit perfectly so I only need to refer to them instead of redrawing similar ones. I had my barometer with me, and I just wish I had used it more in these plains. The valley of S. Cruz strikes me as quite unique; at first, it completely baffled me. I believe I can provide good reasons to suggest that it was once a northern strait similar to the Magellan strait. When I return to England, you’ll have some hard work sorting through my Geology; the little I know I’ve learned in such an odd way that I often feel very uncertain about the number of significant points. No matter how many there turn out to be, I’ve greatly enjoyed gathering them. In T. del Fuego, I collected and examined some corallines; I observed one fact that startled me: in the genus Sertularia (taken in its strictest form as used by Lamoureux) and in two species, which I’d struggle to describe as different, the polyps differed quite significantly in all their most important and evident structural elements. I’ve seen enough to be convinced that the current families of corallines, as arranged by Lamarck, Cuvier, etc., are highly artificial. They appear to be in the same state shells were when Linnaeus left them for Cuvier to rearrange. I really wish I were better at dissection; I realize I can do very little with the tiny structural parts and have to rely on a rough examination as a template for different classes of structure. It’s quite extraordinary that I can't find a single description in my books of the polyp of any coralline except for Alcyonium Lobularia by Savigny. I found a curious little stony Cellaria (a new genus), each cell equipped with long, toothed bristles that can move quickly in different ways. This motion is often simultaneous and can be triggered by irritation. This fact, as far as I can tell, is completely unique in the history of zoophytes (except for Flustra, which has an organ like a vulture's head); it suggests a much closer relationship among the polyps than Lamarck is willing to acknowledge. I can’t remember if I mentioned observing something about the reproduction in that most ambiguous family, the corallines. I feel fairly convinced that if they aren’t plants, they’re not zoophytes either. The "gemmule" of a Halimeda had several joints together, ready to break free from their envelope and attach to some base. I believe in zoophytes universally the gemmule produces a single polypus, which later grows with its cell or single articulation.

The "Beagle" left the Sts. of Magellan in the middle of winter; she found her road out by a wild unfrequented channel; well might Sir J. Narborough call the west coast South Desolation, "because it is so desolate a land to behold." We were driven into Chiloe by some very bad weather. An Englishman gave me three specimens of that very fine Lucanoidal insect which is described in the "Camb. Phil. Trans." (5/2. "Description of Chiasognathus Grantii, a new Lucanideous Insect, etc." by J.F. Stephens ("Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc." Volume IV., page 209, 1833.)), two males and one female. I find Chiloe is composed of lava and recent deposits. The lavas are curious from abounding in, or rather being in parts composed of pitchstone. If we go to Chiloe in the summer, I shall reap an entomological harvest. I suppose the Botany both there and in Chili is well-known.

The "Beagle" left the Straits of Magellan in the middle of winter; it found its way out through a remote, little-used channel. Sir J. Narborough aptly named the west coast South Desolation, "because it is such a desolate land to behold." We were pushed into Chiloe by some really bad weather. An Englishman gave me three specimens of a very fine Lucanoidal insect described in the "Camb. Phil. Trans." (5/2. "Description of Chiasognathus Grantii, a new Lucanideous Insect, etc." by J.F. Stephens ("Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc." Volume IV., page 209, 1833.)), two males and one female. I find that Chiloe is made up of lava and recent deposits. The lavas are interesting because they are full of, or rather partly made up of, pitchstone. If we go to Chiloe in the summer, I will have an entomological bonanza. I think the Botany there and in Chile is well-known.

I forgot to state that in the four cargoes of specimens there have been sent three square boxes, each containing four glass bottles. I mention this in case they should be stowed beneath geological specimens and thus escape your notice, perhaps some spirit may be wanted in them. If a box arrives from B. Ayres with a Megatherium head the other unnumbered specimens, be kind enough to tell me, as I have strong fears for its safety. We arrived here the day before yesterday; the views of the distant mountains are most sublime and the climate delightful; after our long cruise in the damp gloomy climates of the south, to breathe a clear dry air and feel honest warm sunshine, and eat good fresh roast beef must be the summum bonum of human life. I do not like the look of the rocks half so much as the beef, there is too much of those rather insipid ingredients, mica, quartz and feldspar. Our plans are at present undecided; there is a good deal of work to the south of Valparaiso and to the north an indefinite quantity. I look forward to every part with interest. I have sent you in this letter a sad dose of egotism, but recollect I look up to you as my father in Natural History, and a son may talk about himself to his father. In your paternal capacity as proproctor what a great deal of trouble you appear to have had. How turbulent Cambridge is become. Before this time it will have regained its tranquillity. I have a most schoolboy-like wish to be there, enjoying my holidays. It is a most comfortable reflection to me, that a ship being made of wood and iron, cannot last for ever, and therefore this voyage must have an end.

I forgot to mention that in the four shipments of specimens, there are three square boxes, each containing four glass bottles. I'm bringing this up in case they get packed under the geological specimens and you might miss them; maybe some spirit is needed in them. If a box arrives from B. Ayres with a Megatherium head among the other unnumbered specimens, please let me know, as I’m quite worried about its safety. We got here the day before yesterday; the views of the distant mountains are absolutely stunning and the climate is lovely. After our long journey through the damp, gloomy climates of the south, breathing in this clear, dry air, feeling the warm sunshine, and eating good, fresh roast beef must be the ultimate joy in life. I don’t find the rocks as appealing as the beef; there’s too much of those rather bland materials, mica, quartz, and feldspar. Our plans are currently undecided; there’s a lot of work to the south of Valparaiso and an indefinite amount to the north. I’m looking forward to every part with great interest. I’ve sent you this letter filled with my own thoughts, but remember I look up to you as my father in Natural History, and a son can talk about himself to his father. In your role as proproctor, it sounds like you’ve had quite a bit of trouble. How chaotic Cambridge has become. By now, it should have returned to its peaceful state. I have a very schoolboy-like desire to be there, enjoying my holidays. It comforts me to think that a ship, being made of wood and iron, can’t last forever, so this voyage must come to an end.

October 28th. This letter has been lying in my portfolio ever since July; I did not send it away because I did not think it worth the postage; it shall now go with a box of specimens. Shortly after arriving here I set out on a geological excursion, and had a very pleasant ramble about the base of the Andes. The whole country appears composed of breccias (and I imagine slates) which universally have been modified and oftentimes completely altered by the action of fire. The varieties of porphyry thus produced are endless, but nowhere have I yet met with rocks which have flowed in a stream; dykes of greenstone are very numerous. Modern volcanic action is entirely shut up in the very central parts (which cannot now be reached on account of the snow) of the Cordilleras. In the south of the R. Maypu I examined the Tertiary plains, already partially described by M. Gay. (5/3. "Rapport fait a l'Academie Royale des Sciences, sur les Travaux Geologiques de M. Gay," by Alex. Brongniart ("Ann. Sci. Nat." Volume XXVIII., page 394, 1833.) The fossil shells appear to me to be far more different from the recent ones than in the great Patagonian formation; it will be curious if an Eocene and Miocene (recent there is abundance of) could be proved to exist in S. America as well as in Europe. I have been much interested by finding abundance of recent shells at an elevation of 1,300 feet; the country in many places is scattered over with shells but these are all littoral ones. So that I suppose the 1,300 feet elevation must be owing to a succession of small elevations such as in 1822. With these certain proofs of the recent residence of the ocean over all the lower parts of Chili, the outline of every view and the form of each valley possesses a high interest. Has the action of running water or the sea formed this deep ravine? was a question which often arose in my mind and generally was answered by finding a bed of recent shells at the bottom. I have not sufficient arguments, but I do not believe that more than a small fraction of the height of the Andes has been formed within the Tertiary period. The conclusion of my excursion was very unfortunate, I became unwell and could hardly reach this place. I have been in bed for the last month, but am now rapidly getting well. I had hoped during this time to have made a good collection of insects but it has been impossible: I regret the less because Chiloe fairly swarms with collectors; there are more naturalists in the country, than carpenters or shoemakers or any other honest trade.

October 28th. This letter has been sitting in my portfolio since July; I didn’t send it because I didn’t think it was worth the postage. It will now go with a box of specimens. Shortly after I arrived here, I set out on a geological trip and had a really nice walk around the base of the Andes. The entire area seems to be made up of breccias (and I assume slates) that have been universally modified and often completely changed by the action of fire. The different types of porphyry produced are countless, but I haven’t come across any rocks that have flowed like lava; there are many dykes of greenstone. Modern volcanic activity is contained in the central parts (which are currently inaccessible due to snow) of the Cordilleras. In the south of the R. Maypu, I looked at the Tertiary plains, which M. Gay has already partially described. (5/3. "Rapport fait a l'Academie Royale des Sciences, sur les Travaux Geologiques de M. Gay," by Alex. Brongniart ("Ann. Sci. Nat." Volume XXVIII., page 394, 1833.) The fossil shells seem to be much more different from recent ones than in the large Patagonian formation; it would be interesting if both Eocene and Miocene (there is plenty of recent) could be shown to exist in South America as well as in Europe. I’ve been very interested to find a lot of recent shells at an elevation of 1,300 feet; the landscape in many places is scattered with shells, but they are all coastal types. So, I assume the 1,300 feet elevation is due to a series of small rises like in 1822. With these undeniable signs of the recent presence of the ocean over all the lower parts of Chile, the silhouette of every view and the shape of each valley hold a lot of interest. A question that often came to mind was whether this deep ravine was formed by running water or the sea, and it was generally answered by finding a bed of recent shells at the bottom. I don’t have enough evidence, but I don’t believe that more than a small part of the height of the Andes was formed during the Tertiary period. The end of my trip was quite unfortunate; I became unwell and could barely reach this place. I’ve been in bed for the past month, but I’m now recovering quickly. I had hoped to gather a good collection of insects during this time, but it was impossible: I regret it less because Chiloe is full of collectors; there are more naturalists in the country than carpenters, shoemakers, or any other honest profession.

In my letter from the Falkland Islands I said I had fears about a box with a Megatherium. I have since heard from B. Ayres that it went to Liverpool by the brig "Basingwaithe." If you have not received it, it is I think worth taking some trouble about. In October two casks and a jar were sent by H.M.S. "Samarang" via Portsmouth. I have no doubt you have received them. With this letter I send a good many bird skins; in the same box with them, there is a paper parcel containing pill boxes with insects. The other pill boxes require no particular care. You will see in two of these boxes some dried Planariae (terrestrial), the only method I have found of preserving them (they are exceedingly brittle). By examining the white species I understand some little of the internal structure. There are two small parcels of seeds. There are some plants which I hope may interest you, or at least those from Patagonia where I collected every one in flower. There is a bottle clumsily but I think securely corked containing water and gas from the hot baths of Cauquenes seated at foot of Andes and long celebrated for medicinal properties. I took pains in filling and securing both water and gas. If you can find any one who likes to analyze them, I should think it would be worth the trouble. I have not time at present to copy my few observations about the locality, etc., etc., {of} these springs. Will you tell me how the Arachnidae which I have sent home, for instance those from Rio, appear to be preserved. I have doubts whether it is worth while collecting them.

In my letter from the Falkland Islands, I mentioned I was worried about a box containing a Megatherium. I've since heard from B. Ayres that it was sent to Liverpool on the brig "Basingwaithe." If you haven't received it, I think it’s worth looking into. In October, two barrels and a jar were sent by H.M.S. "Samarang" via Portsmouth. I’m sure you’ve received those by now. Along with this letter, I’m sending a lot of bird skins; in the same box, there’s a paper package with pill boxes containing insects. The other pill boxes don’t need special care. In two of these boxes, you’ll find some dried Planariae (land-dwelling); this is the only way I’ve found to preserve them since they’re very fragile. By examining the white species, I’ve learned a bit about their internal structure. There are two small parcels of seeds. I've collected some plants that I hope will interest you, especially those from Patagonia where I made sure to gather each one in bloom. There’s also a bottle, clumsily but I think securely corked, containing water and gas from the hot baths of Cauquenes at the foot of the Andes, which have long been known for their medicinal properties. I took care in filling and sealing both the water and gas. If you can find someone who'd like to analyze them, I think it would be worth the effort. I don’t have the time right now to copy my few notes about the location of these springs, etc. Can you let me know how the Arachnidae I’ve sent home, especially those from Rio, seem to be preserved? I have doubts about whether it’s worth collecting them.

We sail the day after to-morrow: our plans are at last limited and definite; I am delighted to say we have bid an eternal adieu to T. del Fuego. The "Beagle" will not proceed further south than C. Tres Montes; from which point we survey to the north. The Chonos Archipelago is delightfully unknown: fine deep inlets running into the Cordilleras—where we can steer by the light of a volcano. I do not know which part of the voyage now offers the most attractions. This is a shamefully untidy letter, but you must forgive me.

We set sail the day after tomorrow: our plans are finally clear and definite; I'm happy to say we've said a permanent goodbye to T. del Fuego. The "Beagle" won't go any further south than C. Tres Montes; from there, we will explore northwards. The Chonos Archipelago is wonderfully uncharted: there are beautiful deep inlets leading into the mountains—where we can navigate by the light of a volcano. I can’t decide which part of the journey is most exciting. This is a pretty messy letter, but please forgive me.

LETTER 6. TO J.S. HENSLOW. April 18th, 1835. Valparaiso.

I have just returned from Mendoza, having crossed the Cordilleras by two passes. This trip has added much to my knowledge of the geology of the country. Some of the facts, of the truth of which I in my own mind feel fully convinced, will appear to you quite absurd and incredible. I will give a very short sketch of the structure of these huge mountains. In the Portillo pass (the more southern one) travellers have described the Cordilleras to consist of a double chain of nearly equal altitude separated by a considerable interval. This is the case; and the same structure extends to the northward to Uspallata; the little elevation of the eastern line (here not more than 6,000-7,000 feet.) has caused it almost to be overlooked. To begin with the western and principal chain, we have, where the sections are best seen, an enormous mass of a porphyritic conglomerate resting on granite. This latter rock seems to form the nucleus of the whole mass, and is seen in the deep lateral valleys, injected amongst, upheaving, overturning in the most extraordinary manner, the overlying strata. The stratification in all the mountains is beautifully distinct and from a variety in the colour can be seen at great distances. I cannot imagine any part of the world presenting a more extraordinary scene of the breaking up of the crust of the globe than the very central parts of the Andes. The upheaval has taken place by a great number of (nearly) N. and S. lines; which in most cases have formed as many anticlinal and synclinal ravines; the strata in the highest pinnacles are almost universally inclined at an angle from 70 deg to 80 deg. I cannot tell you how I enjoyed some of these views—it is worth coming from England, once to feel such intense delight; at an elevation from 10 to 12,000 feet there is a transparency in the air, and a confusion of distances and a sort of stillness which gives the sensation of being in another world, and when to this is joined the picture so plainly drawn of the great epochs of violence, it causes in the mind a most strange assemblage of ideas.

I’ve just returned from Mendoza, having crossed the mountains by two passes. This trip has greatly expanded my understanding of the country’s geology. Some of the facts that I’m completely convinced about might seem quite absurd and unbelievable to you. I’ll provide a brief overview of the structure of these massive mountains. In the Portillo pass (the more southern one), travelers have described the mountains as a double chain of nearly equal height, separated by a significant gap. This is true, and that same structure extends northward to Uspallata; the small elevation of the eastern line (here not more than 6,000-7,000 feet) has caused it to be almost overlooked. Starting with the western and main chain, where the sections are most visible, there is a huge mass of porphyritic conglomerate resting on granite. This granite seems to form the core of the entire mass and is visible in the deep side valleys, pushing up and overturning the layers above in the most remarkable way. The layers in all the mountains are beautifully distinct, and their variety in color can be seen from great distances. I can’t imagine any place on earth presenting a more extraordinary view of the earth's crust breaking apart than the very heart of the Andes. The upheaval occurred along numerous lines (mostly running north and south), which in many cases created as many anticlinal and synclinal valleys; the strata at the highest peaks are almost universally tilted at an angle of 70 to 80 degrees. I can’t tell you how much I enjoyed some of these views—it’s worth traveling from England just to experience such intense joy; at elevations from 10,000 to 12,000 feet, the air is incredibly clear, and the confusion of distances along with a sort of silence gives the feeling of being in another world. When you combine that with the clearly drawn picture of the great epochs of violence, it leads to a very strange mix of ideas in the mind.

The formation I call Porphyritic Conglomerates is the most important and most developed one in Chili: from a great number of sections I find it a true coarse conglomerate or breccia, which by every step in a slow gradation passes into a fine claystone-porphyry; the pebbles and cement becoming porphyritic till at last all is blended in one compact rock. The porphyries are excessively abundant in this chain. I feel sure at least 4/5ths of them have been thus produced from sedimentary beds in situ. There are porphyries which have been injected from below amongst strata, and others ejected, which have flowed in streams; it is remarkable, and I could show specimens of this rock produced in these three methods, which cannot be distinguished. It is a great mistake considering the Cordilleras here as composed of rocks which have flowed in streams. In this range I nowhere saw a fragment, which I believe to have thus originated, although the road passes at no great distance from the active volcanoes. The porphyries, conglomerate, sandstone and quartzose sandstone and limestones alternate and pass into each other many times, overlying (where not broken through by the granite) clay-slate. In the upper parts, the sandstone begins to alternate with gypsum, till at last we have this substance of a stupendous thickness. I really think the formation is in some places (it varies much) nearly 2,000 feet thick, it occurs often with a green (epidote?) siliceous sandstone and snow-white marble; it resembles that found in the Alps in containing large concretions of a crystalline marble of a blackish grey colour. The upper beds which form some of the higher pinnacles consist of layers of snow-white gypsum and red compact sandstone, from the thickness of paper to a few feet, alternating in an endless round. The rock has a most curiously painted appearance. At the pass of the Peuquenes in this formation, where however a black rock like clay-slate, without many laminae, occurring with a pale limestone, has replaced the red sandstone, I found abundant impressions of shells. The elevation must be between 12 and 13,000 feet. A shell which I believe is the Gryphaea is the most abundant—an Ostrea, Turratella, Ammonites, small bivalves, Terebratulae (?). Perhaps some good conchologist (6/1. Some of these genera are mentioned by Darwin ("Geol. Obs." page 181) as having been named for him by M. D'Orbigny.) will be able to give a guess, to what grand division of the formations of Europe these organic remains bear most resemblance. They are exceedingly imperfect and few. It was late in the season and the situation particularly dangerous for snow-storms. I did not dare to delay, otherwise a grand harvest might have been reaped. So much for the western line; in the Portillo pass, proceeding eastward, we meet an immense mass of conglomerate, dipping to the west 45 deg, which rest on micaceous sandstone, etc., etc., upheaved and converted into quartz-rock penetrated by dykes from the very grand mass of protogine (large crystals of quartz, red feldspar, and occasional little chlorite). Now this conglomerate which reposes on and dips from the protogene 45 deg consists of the peculiar rocks of the first described chain, pebbles of the black rock with shells, green sandstone, etc., etc. It is hence manifest that the upheaval (and deposition at least of part) of the grand eastern chain is entirely posterior to the western. To the north in the Uspallata pass, we have also a fact of the same class. Bear this in mind: it will help to make you believe what follows. I have said the Uspallata range is geologically, although only 6,000-7,000 feet, a continuation of the grand eastern chain. It has its nucleus of granite, consists of grand beds of various crystalline rocks, which I can feel no doubt are subaqueous lavas alternating with sandstone, conglomerates and white aluminous beds (like decomposed feldspar) with many other curious varieties of sedimentary deposits. These lavas and sandstones alterate very many times, and are quite conformable one to the other. During two days of careful examination I said to myself at least fifty times, how exactly like (only rather harder) these beds are to those of the upper Tertiary strata of Patagonia, Chiloe and Concepcion, without the possible identity ever having occurred to me. At last there was no resisting the conclusion. I could not expect shells, for they never occur in this formation; but lignite or carbonaceous shale ought to be found. I had previously been exceedingly puzzled by meeting in the sandstone, thin layers (few inches to feet thick) of a brecciated pitchstone. I strongly suspect the underlying granite has altered such beds into this pitchstone. The silicified wood (particularly characteristic) was yet absent. The conviction that I was on the Tertiary strata was so strong by this time in my mind, that on the third day in the midst of lavas and {? masses} of granite I began my apparently forlorn hunt. How do you think I succeeded? In an escarpement of compact greenish sandstone, I found a small wood of petrified trees in a vertical position, or rather the strata were inclined about 20-30 deg to one point and the trees 70 deg to the opposite one. That is, they were before the tilt truly vertical. The sandstone consists of many layers, and is marked by the concentric lines of the bark (I have specimens); 11 are perfectly silicified and resemble the dicotyledonous wood which I have found at Chiloe and Concepcion (6/2. "Geol. Obs." page 202. Specimens of the silicified wood were examined by Robert Brown, and determined by him as coniferous, "partaking of the characters of the Araucarian tribe, with some curious points of affinity with the yew."); the others (30-40) I only know to be trees from the analogy of form and position; they consist of snow-white columns (like Lot's wife) of coarsely crystalline carb. of lime. The largest shaft is 7 feet. They are all close together, within 100 yards, and about the same level: nowhere else could I find any. It cannot be doubted that the layers of fine sandstone have quietly been deposited between a clump of trees which were fixed by their roots. The sandstone rests on lava, is covered by a great bed apparently about 1,000 feet thick of black augitic lava, and over this there are at least 5 grand alternations of such rocks and aqueous sedimentary deposits, amounting in thickness to several thousand feet. I am quite afraid of the only conclusion which I can draw from this fact, namely that there must have been a depression in the surface of the land to that amount. But neglecting this consideration, it was a most satisfactory support of my presumption of the Tertiary (I mean by Tertiary, that the shells of the period were closely allied, or some identical, to those which now live, as in the lower beds of Patagonia) age of this eastern chain. A great part of the proof must remain upon my ipse dixit of a mineralogical resemblance with those beds whose age is known, and the character of which resemblance is to be subject to infinite variation, passing from one variety to another by a concretionary structure. I hardly expect you to believe me, when it is a consequence of this view that granite, which forms peaks of a height probably of 14,000 feet, has been fluid in the Tertiary period; that strata of that period are altered by its heat, and are traversed by dykes from the mass. That these strata have also probably undergone an immense depression, that they are now inclined at high angles and form regular or complicated anticlinal lines. To complete the climax and seal your disbelief, these same sedimentary strata and lavas are traversed by VERY NUMEROUS, true metallic veins of iron, copper, arsenic, silver and gold, and these can be traced to the underlying granite. A gold mine has been worked close to the clump of silicified trees. If when you see my specimens, sections and account, you should think that there is pretty strong presumptive evidence of the above facts, it appears very important; for the structure, and size of this chain will bear comparison with any in the world, and that this all should have been produced in so very recent a period is indeed wonderful. In my own mind I am quite convinced of the reality of this. I can anyhow most conscientiously say that no previously formed conjecture warped my judgment. As I have described so did I actually observe the facts. But I will have some mercy and end this most lengthy account of my geological trip.

The formation I call Porphyritic Conglomerates is the most significant and well-developed one in Chile: from numerous sections, I find it to be a true coarse conglomerate or breccia, which gradually transitions into a fine claystone-porphyry; the pebbles and cement become porphyritic until everything blends into one solid rock. The porphyries are extremely abundant in this range. I am confident that at least 80% of them were formed from sedimentary beds in place. There are porphyries that were pushed up from below among the layers, and others that erupted and flowed in streams; it’s remarkable, and I could show samples of rock produced in these three ways, which cannot be differentiated. It’s a big mistake to think of the Cordilleras here as made up of rocks that have flowed in streams. In this range, I never saw a fragment that I believe originated that way, even though the road passes not far from the active volcanoes. The porphyries, conglomerate, sandstone, quartz sandstone, and limestones alternate and merge into each other many times, resting (where not intruded upon by granite) over clay-slate. In the higher areas, the sandstone starts to alternate with gypsum, until eventually we have this material of immense thickness. I genuinely think the formation is nearly 2,000 feet thick in some places (it varies greatly); it often occurs with green (epidote?) siliceous sandstone and pure white marble; it resembles what's found in the Alps due to the large clusters of crystalline marble of a dark grey color. The upper layers that create some of the highest peaks consist of layers of pure white gypsum and compact red sandstone, ranging from the thickness of paper to a few feet, continuously alternating. The rock has a uniquely painted look. At the pass of the Peuquenes in this formation, where, however, a black rock like clay-slate, with few layers, occurs alongside pale limestone, has replaced the red sandstone, I found many fossilized shells. The elevation must be between 12,000 and 13,000 feet. A shell that I believe is Gryphaea is the most common—along with Ostrea, Turritella, Ammonites, small bivalves, and Terebratulae (?). Perhaps a knowledgeable conchologist (6/1. Some of these genera are mentioned by Darwin ("Geol. Obs." page 181) as having been named for him by M. D'Orbigny.) can guess what major category of European formations these organic remains most resemble. They are exceedingly incomplete and few. It was late in the season, and the situation was especially risky for snowstorms. I didn’t dare to linger; otherwise, I could have harvested a lot. As for the western line; in the Portillo pass, heading east, we come across an immense mass of conglomerate, sloping to the west at a 45-degree angle, resting on micaceous sandstone, etc., etc., which has been uplifted and turned into quartz rock penetrated by dykes from the significant protogine mass (large crystals of quartz, red feldspar, and occasional little chlorite). Now this conglomerate, which rests on and slopes from the protogine at 45 degrees, consists of the unique rocks of the first described chain, pebbles of the black rock with shells, green sandstone, etc., etc. It’s clear that the uplift (and at least some of the deposition) of the grand eastern chain came after the western. Further north in the Uspallata pass, we also find an occurrence of the same kind. Keep this in mind: it will help you to believe what follows. I’ve said that the Uspallata range is geologically, though only 6,000-7,000 feet high, a continuation of the great eastern chain. It has a core of granite, consists of large beds of various crystalline rocks, which I have no doubt are subaqueous lavas alternating with sandstone, conglomerates, and white aluminous beds (like decomposed feldspar) along with many other fascinating types of sedimentary deposits. These lavas and sandstones alternate many times and are quite conformable to each other. During two days of careful examination, I found myself thinking at least fifty times how remarkably similar (only somewhat harder) these beds are to those of the upper Tertiary strata of Patagonia, Chiloe, and Concepcion, without the possibility of real identity ever occurring to me. Eventually, I couldn’t ignore the conclusion. I didn’t expect to find shells, since they never occur in this formation; but lignite or carbonaceous shale should be present. I had previously been quite confused to see in the sandstone thin layers (a few inches to feet thick) of a brecciated pitchstone. I strongly suspect the underlying granite has altered such layers into this pitchstone. The silicified wood (particularly distinctive) was still absent. My conviction that I was on the Tertiary strata was so strong by this time that on the third day, amid lavas and {? masses} of granite, I started my seemingly hopeless search. How do you think I did? In a steep section of compact greenish sandstone, I found a small wood of petrified trees in a vertical position, or rather, the layers were tilted about 20-30 degrees to one side and the trees 70 degrees to the opposite side. That is, they were truly vertical before the tilt happened. The sandstone consists of many layers and is marked by concentric lines of bark (I have samples); 11 are perfectly silicified and resemble the dicotyledonous wood I’ve found in Chiloe and Concepcion (6/2. "Geol. Obs." page 202. Specimens of the silicified wood were examined by Robert Brown and determined by him to be coniferous, resembling the traits of the Araucarian tribe, with some interesting similarities to yew.); the others (30-40) I only recognize as trees based on their shape and position; they consist of pure white columns (like Lot's wife) of coarsely crystalline calcium carbonate. The largest shaft is 7 feet. They are all located close together, within 100 yards, and at about the same elevation: I couldn’t find any elsewhere. It’s undeniable that the layers of fine sandstone were quietly deposited between a cluster of trees held by their roots. The sandstone rests on lava, is covered by a large bed, seemingly about 1,000 feet thick, of black augitic lava, and above that, there are at least five significant alternations of these rocks and aqueous sedimentary deposits, adding up to several thousand feet in thickness. I’m quite concerned about the only conclusion I can draw from this fact, namely that there must have been a depression in the land surface of that amount. But setting this aside, it was a very satisfying support for my assumption of the Tertiary (by Tertiary, I mean that the shells of that period were closely related or somewhat identical to those that currently live, as in the lower beds of Patagonia) age of this eastern chain. Much of the evidence must rely on my ipse dixit regarding the mineralogical similarity with those beds whose age is known, and the nature of this resemblance is subject to infinite variation, transitioning from one variety to another through a concretionary structure. I hardly expect you to believe me, especially since this view implies that granite, which forms peaks probably reaching heights of 14,000 feet, has been fluid during the Tertiary period; that strata from that period are altered by its heat and are cut through by dykes from the mass. That these strata have also likely experienced significant depression, that they are now tilted at steep angles and create regular or complex anticlinal lines. To top it off and seal your disbelief, these same sedimentary strata and lavas are crossed by NUMEROUS true metallic veins of iron, copper, arsenic, silver, and gold, traceable to the underlying granite. A gold mine has been worked near the cluster of silicified trees. If when you see my samples, sections, and account, you feel that there is pretty strong circumstantial evidence of these facts, it seems very significant; for the structure and scale of this chain can be compared with any in the world, and that all of this was produced in such a recent period is indeed astonishing. In my mind, I am entirely convinced of this reality. I can say with complete honesty that no previously formed theory biased my judgment. As I have described, so I truly observed the facts. But I will show some mercy and conclude this lengthy account of my geological expedition.

On some of the large patches of perpetual snow, I found the famous red snow of the Arctic countries; I send with this letter my observations and a piece of paper on which I tried to dry some specimens. If the fact is new and you think it worth while, either yourself examine them or send them to whoever has described the specimens from the north and publish a notice in any of the periodicals. I also send a small bottle with two lizards, one of them is viviparous as you will see by the accompanying notice. A M. Gay—a French naturalist—has already published in one of the newspapers of this country a similar statement and probably has forwarded to Paris some account; as the fact appears singular would it not be worth while to hand over the specimens to some good lizardologist and comparative anatomist to publish an account of their internal structure? Do what you think fit.

On some of the large areas of permanent snow, I found the famous red snow from the Arctic regions. I'm sending you my observations along with a piece of paper where I tried to dry some samples. If this discovery is novel and you think it’s worthwhile, you can either examine them yourself or send them to someone who has described similar specimens from the north, and publish a notice in any of the journals. I'm also sending a small bottle containing two lizards; one of them is viviparous, as you'll see in the accompanying notice. A M. Gay—a French naturalist—has already published a similar statement in one of the newspapers here and probably has sent an account to Paris. Since this fact seems unusual, wouldn’t it be a good idea to pass the specimens to a reputable lizard expert and comparative anatomist to publish a report on their internal structure? Do whatever you think is best.

This letter will go with a cargo of specimens from Coquimbo. I shall write to let you know when they are sent off. In the box there are two bags of seeds, one {from the} valleys of the Cordilleras 5,000-10,000 feet high, the soil and climate exceedingly dry, soil very light and stony, extremes in temperature; the other chiefly from the dry sandy Traversia of Mendoza 3,000 feet more or less. If some of the bushes should grow but not be healthy, try a slight sprinkling of salt and saltpetre. The plain is saliferous. All the flowers in the Cordilleras appear to be autumnal flowerers—they were all in blow and seed, many of them very pretty. I gathered them as I rode along on the hill sides. If they will but choose to come up, I have no doubt many would be great rarities. In the Mendoza bag there are the seeds or berries of what appears to be a small potato plant with a whitish flower. They grow many leagues from where any habitation could ever have existed owing to absence of water. Amongst the Chonos dried plants, you will see a fine specimen of the wild potato, growing under a most opposite climate, and unquestionably a true wild potato. It must be a distinct species from that of the Lower Cordilleras one. Perhaps as with the banana, distinct species are now not to be distinguished in their varieties produced by cultivation. I cannot copy out the few remarks about the Chonos potato. With the specimens there is a bundle of old papers and notebooks. Will you take care of them; in case I should lose my notes, these might be useful. I do not send home any insects because they must be troublesome to you, and now so little more of the voyage remains unfinished I can well take charge of them. In two or three days I set out for Coquimbo by land; the "Beagle" calls for me in the beginning of June. So that I have six weeks more to enjoy geologising over these curious mountains of Chili. There is at present a bloody revolution in Peru. The Commodore has gone there, and in the hurry has carried our letters with him; perhaps amongst them there will be one from you. I wish I had the old Commodore here, I would shake some consideration for others into his old body. From Coquimbo you will again hear from me.

This letter will be sent along with a shipment of samples from Coquimbo. I’ll let you know when they’re dispatched. In the box, there are two bags of seeds: one from the valleys of the Andes at an elevation of 5,000-10,000 feet, where the soil and climate are extremely dry, with very light and stony soil and temperature extremes; the other mainly from the dry, sandy Traversia of Mendoza, around 3,000 feet high. If some of the bushes grow but aren't healthy, try lightly sprinkling them with salt and saltpeter. The plain is saline. All the flowers in the Andes seem to bloom in the autumn—they were all flowering and producing seeds, many of them quite beautiful. I picked them while riding along the hillsides. If they decide to sprout, I’m sure many will be remarkable rarities. In the Mendoza bag, there are seeds or berries from what looks like a small potato plant with a whitish flower. They grow many leagues away from where any habitation could ever exist due to the lack of water. Among the dried plants from the Chonos, you’ll find a great specimen of the wild potato, growing in a completely different climate, and it's definitely a true wild potato. It must be a distinct species from the one found in the Lower Andes. Maybe, like with bananas, distinct species can't be easily recognized among the varieties produced through cultivation. I can't copy the few notes about the Chonos potato. Along with the specimens, there’s a bundle of old papers and notebooks. Could you please take care of them? In case I lose my notes, these might be useful. I'm not sending any insects home because they would likely be a hassle for you, and since there's not much of the voyage left, I can take care of them myself. In two or three days, I will head to Coquimbo by land; the "Beagle" will pick me up at the beginning of June. So, I still have six weeks to enjoy exploring these fascinating mountains of Chile. Right now, there's a bloody revolution happening in Peru. The Commodore has gone there and, in the rush, took our letters with him; maybe yours is among them. I wish I had the old Commodore here; I'd shake some consideration for others into him. You’ll hear from me again from Coquimbo.

LETTER 7. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Lima, July 12th, 1835.

LETTER 7. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Lima, July 12, 1835.

This is the last letter which I shall ever write to you from the shores of America, and for this reason I send it. In a few days time the "Beagle" will sail for the Galapagos Islands. I look forward with joy and interest to this, both as being somewhat nearer to England and for the sake of having a good look at an active volcano. Although we have seen lava in abundance, I have never yet beheld the crater. I sent by H.M.S. "Conway" two large boxes of specimens. The "Conway" sailed the latter end of June. With them were letters for you, since that time I have travelled by land from Valparaiso to Copiapo and seen something more of the Cordilleras. Some of my geological views have been, subsequently to the last letter, altered. I believe the upper mass of strata is not so very modern as I supposed. This last journey has explained to me much of the ancient history of the Cordilleras. I feel sure they formerly consisted of a chain of volcanoes from which enormous streams of lava were poured forth at the bottom of the sea. These alternate with sedimentary beds to a vast thickness; at a subsequent period these volcanoes must have formed islands, from which have been produced strata of several thousand feet thick of coarse conglomerate. (7/1. See "Geological Observations on South America" (London, 1846), Chapter VII.: "Central Chile; Structure of the Cordillera.") These islands were covered with fine trees; in the conglomerate, I found one 15 feet in circumference perfectly silicified to the very centre. The alternations of compact crystalline rocks (I cannot doubt subaqueous lavas), and sedimentary beds, now upheaved fractured and indurated, form the main range of the Andes. The formation was produced at the time when ammonites, gryphites, oysters, Pecten, Mytilus, etc., etc., lived. In the central parts of Chili the structure of the lower beds is rendered very obscure by the metamorphic action which has rendered even the coarsest conglomerates porphyritic. The Cordilleras of the Andes so worthy of admiration from the grandeur of their dimensions, rise in dignity when it is considered that since the period of ammonites, they have formed a marked feature in the geography of the globe. The geology of these mountains pleased me in one respect; when reading Lyell, it had always struck me that if the crust of the world goes on changing in a circle, there ought to be somewhere found formations which, having the age of the great European Secondary beds, should possess the structure of Tertiary rocks or those formed amidst islands and in limited basins. Now the alternations of lava and coarse sediment which form the upper parts of the Andes, correspond exactly to what would accumulate under such circumstances. In consequence of this, I can only very roughly separate into three divisions the varying strata (perhaps 8,000 feet thick) which compose these mountains. I am afraid you will tell me to learn my ABC to know quartz from feldspar before I indulge in such speculations. I lately got hold of a report on M. Dessalines D'Orbigny's labours in S. America (7/2. "Voyage dans l'Amerique Meridionale, etc." (A. Dessalines D'Orbigny).); I experienced rather a debasing degree of vexation to find he has described the Geology of the Pampas, and that I have had some hard riding for nothing, it was however gratifying that my conclusions are the same, as far as I can collect, with his results. It is also capital that the whole of Bolivia will be described. I hope to be able to connect his geology of that country with mine of Chili. After leaving Copiapo, we touched at Iquique. I visited but do not quite understand the position of the nitrate of soda beds. Here in Peru, from the state of anarchy, I can make no expedition.

This is the last letter I will ever write to you from the shores of America, and that’s why I’m sending it. In a few days, the "Beagle" will set sail for the Galapagos Islands. I’m excited and interested about this, both because it brings me closer to England and because I want to see an active volcano up close. Although we’ve seen plenty of lava, I’ve never actually seen the crater. I sent two large boxes of specimens via H.M.S. "Conway." The "Conway" left at the end of June. I included letters for you in those boxes, and since then, I’ve traveled by land from Valparaiso to Copiapo, seeing more of the Cordilleras. Some of my geological views have changed since my last letter. I now believe the upper layers of rock aren’t as modern as I thought. This last journey has clarified much of the ancient history of the Cordilleras for me. I’m convinced they used to be a chain of volcanoes that poured out massive streams of lava at the bottom of the sea. These layers alternate with sedimentary beds, creating significant thickness; later, these volcanoes likely formed islands, from which several thousand feet of thick coarse conglomerate were formed. (7/1. See "Geological Observations on South America" (London, 1846), Chapter VII: "Central Chile; Structure of the Cordillera.") These islands were covered in lush trees; in the conglomerate, I found one that was 15 feet around, perfectly silicified all the way through. The alternating compact crystalline rocks (which I can only think were underwater lavas), and sedimentary layers, have now been uplifted, fractured, and hardened, forming the main range of the Andes. This formation occurred when ammonites, gryphites, oysters, Pecten, Mytilus, etc., were alive. In central Chile, the structure of the lower layers is obscured by metamorphic actions that even changed the coarsest conglomerates into porphyritic ones. The Andes are incredibly impressive due to their vast size, and they gain even more significance knowing they have been a notable feature in the globe’s geography since the ammonite period. I found the geology of these mountains intriguing in one respect; when I read Lyell, it always struck me that if the earth's crust continues to change in cycles, there should be somewhere formations that are as old as the great European Secondary beds but have the structure of Tertiary rocks or those formed in islands and enclosed basins. The layers of lava and coarse sediment that make up the upper parts of the Andes match exactly what would accumulate under those conditions. Because of this, I can only roughly divide the varying layers (which might be about 8,000 feet thick) that make up these mountains into three groups. I’m afraid you might tell me to learn my ABCs to distinguish quartz from feldspar before I indulge in such speculations. I recently came across a report on M. Dessalines D'Orbigny’s work in South America (7/2. "Voyage dans l'Amerique Meridionale, etc." (A. Dessalines D'Orbigny)); I felt a bit frustrated to find that he has already described the geology of the Pampas, and that I’ve done some hard riding for nothing, but it’s gratifying that my conclusions align with his results. It’s also great that the entire area of Bolivia will be described. I hope to connect his geological findings in that country with mine in Chile. After leaving Copiapo, we stopped in Iquique. I visited but don’t fully understand the location of the nitrate of soda beds. Here in Peru, due to the state of chaos, I can’t make any expeditions.

I hear from home, that my brother is going to send me a box with books, and a letter from you. It is very unfortunate that I cannot receive this before we reach Sydney, even if it ever gets safely so far. I shall not have another opportunity for many months of again writing to you. Will you have the charity to send me one more letter (as soon as this reaches you) directed to the C. of Good Hope. Your letters besides affording me the greatest delight always give me a fresh stimulus for exertion. Excuse this geological prosy letter, and farewell till you hear from me at Sydney, and see me in the autumn of 1836.

I heard from home that my brother is going to send me a box with books and a letter from you. It's really unfortunate that I won't be able to receive this before we get to Sydney, even if it does make it that far safely. I won't have another chance to write to you for many months. Would you be kind enough to send me one more letter (as soon as you get this) addressed to the Cape of Good Hope? Your letters not only bring me great joy, but they also motivate me to keep going. Sorry for this dry letter about geology, and goodbye until you hear from me in Sydney and see me in the autumn of 1836.

LETTER 8. TO JOSIAH WEDGWOOD. {Shrewsbury, October 5th, 1836.}

My dear Uncle

The "Beagle" arrived at Falmouth on Sunday evening, and I reached home late last night. My head is quite confused with so much delight, but I cannot allow my sisters to tell you first how happy I am to see all my dear friends again. I am obliged to return in three or four days to London, where the "Beagle" will be paid off, and then I shall pay Shrewsbury a longer visit. I am most anxious once again to see Maer, and all its inhabitants, so that in the course of two or three weeks, I hope in person to thank you, as being my first Lord of the Admiralty. (8/1.) Readers of the "Life and Letters" will remember that it was to Josiah Wedgwood that Darwin owed the great opportunity of his life ("Life and Letters," Volume I., page 59), and it was fitting that he should report himself to his "first Lord of the Admiralty." The present letter clears up a small obscurity to which Mr. Poulton has called attention ("Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection," "Century" Series, 1896, page 25). Writing to Fitz-Roy from Shrewsbury on October 6th, Darwin says, "I arrived here yesterday morning at breakfast time." This refers to his arrival at his father's house, after having slept at the inn. The date of his arrival in Shrewsbury was, therefore, October 4th, as given in the "Life and Letters," I., page 272.) The entries in his Diary are:—October 2, 1831. Took leave of my home. October 4, 1836. Reached Shrewsbury after absence of 5 years and 2 days.) I am so very happy I hardly know what I am writing. Believe me your most affectionate nephew,

The "Beagle" arrived in Falmouth on Sunday evening, and I got home late last night. My mind is a bit overwhelmed with so much joy, but I can't let my sisters be the first to tell you how happy I am to see all my dear friends again. I have to go back to London in three or four days, where the "Beagle" will be officially finished, and then I’ll visit Shrewsbury for a longer time. I’m really looking forward to seeing Maer and all its residents again, so in the next two or three weeks, I hope to thank you in person, as my first Lord of the Admiralty. (8/1.) Readers of "Life and Letters" will remember that Darwin owed the great opportunity of his life to Josiah Wedgwood ("Life and Letters," Volume I., page 59), and it was fitting for him to report to his "first Lord of the Admiralty." This letter clears up a minor confusion pointed out by Mr. Poulton ("Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection," "Century" Series, 1896, page 25). Writing to Fitz-Roy from Shrewsbury on October 6th, Darwin states, "I arrived here yesterday morning at breakfast time." This refers to his arrival at his father's house after staying at the inn. Therefore, the date of his arrival in Shrewsbury was October 4th, as noted in "Life and Letters," I., page 272.) The entries in his Diary are:—October 2, 1831. Said goodbye to my home. October 4, 1836. Reached Shrewsbury after being away for 5 years and 2 days.) I’m so incredibly happy I can hardly keep track of what I’m writing. Believe me, your most affectionate nephew,

CHAS. DARWIN.

Charles Darwin.

LETTER 9. TO C. LYELL. Shrewsbury, Monday {November 12th, 1838}.

My dear Lyell

I suppose you will be in Hart St. (9/1. Sir Charles Lyell lived at 16, Hart Street, Bloomsbury.) to-morrow {or} the 14th. I write because I cannot avoid wishing to be the first person to tell Mrs. Lyell and yourself, that I have the very good, and shortly since {i.e. until lately} very unexpected fortune of going to be married! The lady is my cousin Miss Emma Wedgwood, the sister of Hensleigh Wedgwood, and of the elder brother who married my sister, so we are connected by manifold ties, besides on my part, by the most sincere love and hearty gratitude to her for accepting such a one as myself.

I guess you'll be at Hart St. tomorrow or the 14th. I'm writing because I can't help but want to be the first to share the exciting news with Mrs. Lyell and you—I recently received the wonderful and somewhat unexpected news that I'm getting married! The lucky lady is my cousin, Miss Emma Wedgwood, the sister of Hensleigh Wedgwood and the older brother who married my sister. So, we have a lot of family connections, and on my part, I feel genuine love and deep gratitude that she has chosen to be with someone like me.

I determined when last at Maer to try my chance, but I hardly expected such good fortune would turn up for me. I shall be in town in the middle or latter end of the ensuing week. (9/2. Mr. Darwin was married on January 29th, 1839 (see "Life and Letters," I., page 299). The present letter was written the day after he had become engaged.) I fear you will say I might very well have left my story untold till we met. But I deeply feel your kindness and friendship towards me, which in truth I may say, has been one chief source of happiness to me, ever since my return to England: so you must excuse me. I am well sure that Mrs. Lyell, who has sympathy for every one near her, will give me her hearty congratulations.

I decided when I was last at Maer to take my chances, but I didn't really expect such good luck to come my way. I'll be in town in the middle or later part of next week. (9/2. Mr. Darwin got married on January 29th, 1839 (see "Life and Letters," I., page 299). This letter was written the day after he got engaged.) I worry you might think I could have waited to share my news until we met. But I truly appreciate your kindness and friendship towards me, which has been one of my main sources of happiness since I came back to England, so I hope you can forgive me. I'm sure that Mrs. Lyell, who cares about everyone around her, will offer me her warm congratulations.

Believe me my dear Lyell Yours most truly obliged CHAS. DARWIN.

Believe me, my dear Lyell. Yours truly, CHAS. DARWIN.

(PLATE: MRS. DARWIN. Walker and Cockerell, ph. sc.)

LETTER 10. TO EMMA WEDGWOOD. Sunday Night. Athenaeum. {January 20th, 1839.}

...I cannot tell you how much I enjoyed my Maer visit,—I felt in anticipation my future tranquil life: how I do hope you may be as happy as I know I shall be: but it frightens me, as often as I think of what a family you have been one of. I was thinking this morning how it came, that I, who am fond of talking and am scarcely ever out of spirits, should so entirely rest my notions of happiness on quietness, and a good deal of solitude: but I believe the explanation is very simple and I mention it because it will give you hopes, that I shall gradually grow less of a brute, it is that during the five years of my voyage (and indeed I may add these two last) which from the active manner in which they have been passed, may be said to be the commencement of my real life, the whole of my pleasure was derived from what passed in my mind, while admiring views by myself, travelling across the wild deserts or glorious forests or pacing the deck of the poor little "Beagle" at night. Excuse this much egotism,—I give it you because I think you will humanize me, and soon teach me there is greater happiness than building theories and accumulating facts in silence and solitude. My own dearest Emma, I earnestly pray, you may never regret the great, and I will add very good, deed, you are to perform on the Tuesday: my own dear future wife, God bless you...The Lyells called on me to-day after church; as Lyell was so full of geology he was obliged to disgorge,—and I dine there on Tuesday for an especial confidence. I was quite ashamed of myself to-day, for we talked for half an hour, unsophisticated geology, with poor Mrs. Lyell sitting by, a monument of patience. I want practice in ill-treatment the female sex,—I did not observe Lyell had any compunction; I hope to harden my conscience in time: few husbands seem to find it difficult to effect this. Since my return I have taken several looks, as you will readily believe, into the drawing-room; I suppose my taste {for} harmonious colours is already deteriorated, for I declare the room begins to look less ugly. I take so much pleasure in the house (10/1. No. 12, Upper Gower Street, is now No. 110, Gower Street, and forms part of a block inhabited by Messrs. Shoolbred's employes. We are indebted, for this information, to Mr. Wheatley, of the Society of Arts.), I declare I am just like a great overgrown child with a new toy; but then, not like a real child, I long to have a co-partner and possessor.

...I can't tell you how much I enjoyed my visit to Maer—I was looking forward to my future peaceful life. I really hope you can be as happy as I know I will be, but it frightens me whenever I think about the family you come from. This morning, I was considering how it’s surprising that someone like me, who loves to talk and is rarely in a bad mood, bases my idea of happiness so much on quiet and quite a bit of solitude. But I think the explanation is pretty simple, and I mention it because it might give you hope that I’ll gradually become less of a jerk. It’s that during the five years of my journey (and I might add these last two), which have been so active they can be considered the start of my real life, all my joy came from what was going on in my mind while admiring views alone, traveling through wild deserts or beautiful forests, or pacing the deck of the little “Beagle” at night. Sorry for the ego trip—I share this because I think you’ll make me more human and teach me that there’s greater happiness than just building theories and gathering facts in silence and solitude. My dearest Emma, I sincerely hope you never regret the great, and I will add very good, deed you’re going to do on Tuesday: my beloved future wife, God bless you...The Lyells visited me today after church; Lyell was so full of geology he had to spill it all out—and I’m having dinner there on Tuesday for a special chat. I felt quite ashamed of myself today because we talked for half an hour about plain geology, with poor Mrs. Lyell sitting by as a monument of patience. I need to practice treating women poorly—I didn’t notice Lyell feeling guilty about it; I hope to harden my conscience in time: few husbands seem to find this difficult. Since I’ve been back, I’ve taken several looks, as you can imagine, into the drawing room; I suppose my taste for harmonious colors is already slipping, because I honestly think the room is starting to look less ugly. I take so much pleasure in the house (10/1. No. 12, Upper Gower Street, is now No. 110, Gower Street, and forms part of a block inhabited by Messrs. Shoolbred's employees. We owe this information to Mr. Wheatley, of the Society of Arts.), I feel just like a big overgrown child with a new toy; but unlike a real child, I long to have a partner to share it with.

(10/2. The following passage is taken from the MS. copy of the "Autobiography;" it was not published in the "Life and Letters" which appeared in Mrs. Darwin's lifetime:—)

(10/2. The following passage is taken from the manuscript copy of the "Autobiography;" it was not published in the "Life and Letters" that came out during Mrs. Darwin's lifetime:—)

You all know your mother, and what a good mother she has ever been to all of you. She has been my greatest blessing, and I can declare that in my whole life I have never heard her utter one word I would rather have been unsaid. She has never failed in kindest sympathy towards me, and has borne with the utmost patience my frequent complaints of ill-health and discomfort. I do not believe she has ever missed an opportunity of doing a kind action to any one near her. I marvel at my good fortune that she, so infinitely my superior in every single moral quality, consented to be my wife. She has been my wise adviser and cheerful comforter throughout life, which without her would have been during a very long period a miserable one from ill-health. She has earned the love of every soul near her.

You all know your mother and how great she's always been to all of you. She has been my greatest blessing, and I can honestly say that in my entire life, I’ve never heard her say anything I wished she hadn't. She has always shown me the kindest sympathy and has patiently dealt with my constant complaints about not feeling well. I don't think she's ever missed a chance to do something nice for anyone around her. I’m amazed by my luck that she, who is so far superior to me in every moral way, agreed to be my wife. She has been my wise advisor and cheerful comfort throughout my life, which without her would have been quite miserable for a long time due to poor health. She has earned the love of everyone close to her.

LETTER 11. C. LYELL TO C. DARWIN. {July?, 1841?}.

(11/1. Lyell started on his first visit to the United States in July, 1841, and was absent thirteen months. Darwin returned to London July 23rd, 1841, after a prolonged absence; he may, therefore, have missed seeing Lyell. Assuming the date 1841 to be correct, it would seem that the plan of living in the country was formed a year before it was actually carried out.)

(11/1. Lyell set off on his first trip to the United States in July, 1841, and was gone for thirteen months. Darwin got back to London on July 23rd, 1841, after being away for a long time; so he might have missed Lyell. If we assume the date of 1841 is accurate, it looks like the idea of living in the countryside was made a year before it actually happened.)

I have no doubt that your father did rightly in persuading you to stay {at Shrewsbury}, but we were much disappointed in not seeing you before our start for a year's absence. I cannot tell you how often since your long illness I have missed the friendly intercourse which we had so frequently before, and on which I built more than ever after your marriage. It will not happen easily that twice in one's life, even in the large world of London, a congenial soul so occupied with precisely the same pursuits and with an independence enabling him to pursue them will fall so nearly in my way, and to have had it snatched from me with the prospect of your residence somewhat far off is a privation I feel as a very great one. I hope you will not, like Herschell, get far off from a railway.

I have no doubt that your dad was right to convince you to stay {at Shrewsbury}, but we were really disappointed that we didn’t see you before we left for a year. I can’t tell you how much I’ve missed the friendly chats we used to have so often since your long illness, especially after your marriage, which I counted on even more. It’s not every day that you meet someone who shares the same interests and has the freedom to pursue them, and to have that taken away from me with you living somewhat far away feels like a huge loss. I hope you won’t, like Herschell, end up far from a train station.

LETTER 12. TO CATHERINE DARWIN.

(12/1. The following letter was written to his sister Catherine about two months before Charles Darwin settled at Down:—)

(12/1. The following letter was written to his sister Catherine about two months before Charles Darwin moved to Down:—)

Sunday {July 1842}.

You must have been surprised at not having heard sooner about the house. Emma and I only returned yesterday afternoon from sleeping there. I will give you in detail, as my father would like, MY opinion on it—Emma's slightly differs. Position:—about 1/4 of a mile from the small village of Down in Kent—16 miles from St. Paul's—8 1/2 miles from station (with many trains) which station is only 10 from London. This is bad, as the drive from {i.e. on account of} the hills is long. I calculate we are two hours going from London Bridge. Village about forty houses with old walnut trees in the middle where stands an old flint church and the lanes meet. Inhabitants very respectable—infant school—grown up people great musicians—all touch their hats as in Wales and sit at their open doors in the evening; no high road leads through the village. The little pot-house where we slept is a grocer's shop, and the landlord is the carpenter—so you may guess the style of the village. There are butcher and baker and post-office. A carrier goes weekly to London and calls anywhere for anything in London and takes anything anywhere. On the road {from London} to the village, on a fine day the scenery is absolutely beautiful: from close to our house the view is very distant and rather beautiful, but the house being situated on a rather high tableland has somewhat of a desolate air. There is a most beautiful old farm-house, with great thatched barns and old stumps of oak trees, like that of Skelton, one field off. The charm of the place to me is that almost every field is intersected (as alas is ours) by one or more foot-paths. I never saw so many walks in any other county. The country is extraordinarily rural and quiet with narrow lanes and high hedges and hardly any ruts. It is really surprising to think London is only 16 miles off. The house stands very badly, close to a tiny lane and near another man's field. Our field is 15 acres and flat, looking into flat-bottomed valleys on both sides, but no view from the drawing-room, which faces due south, except on our flat field and bits of rather ugly distant horizon. Close in front there are some old (very productive) cherry trees, walnut trees, yew, Spanish chestnut, pear, old larch, Scotch fir and silver fir and old mulberry trees, {which} make rather a pretty group. They give the ground an old look, but from not flourishing much they also give it rather a desolate look. There are quinces and medlars and plums with plenty of fruit, and Morello cherries; but few apples. The purple magnolia flowers against the house. There is a really fine beech in view in our hedge. The kitchen garden is a detestable slip and the soil looks wretched from the quantity of chalk flints, but I really believe it is productive. The hedges grow well all round our field, and it is a noted piece of hayland. This year the crop was bad, but was bought, as it stood, for 2 pounds per acre—that is 30 pounds—the purchaser getting it in. Last year it was sold for 45 pounds—no manure was put on in the interval. Does not this sound well? Ask my father. Does the mulberry and magnolia show it is not very cold in winter, which I fear is the case? Tell Susan it is 9 miles from Knole Park and 6 from Westerham, at which places I hear the scenery is beautiful. There are many very odd views round our house—deepish flat-bottomed valley and nice farm-house, but big, white, ugly, fallow fields;—much wheat grown here. House ugly, looks neither old nor new—walls two feet thick—windows rather small—lower story rather low. Capital study 18 x 18. Dining-room 21 x 18. Drawing-room can easily be added to: is 21 x 15. Three stories, plenty of bedrooms. We could hold the Hensleighs and you and Susan and Erasmus all together. House in good repair. Mr. Cresy a few years ago laid out for the owner 1,500 pounds and made a new roof. Water-pipes over house—two bath-rooms—pretty good offices and good stable-yard, etc., and a cottage. I believe the price is about 2,200 pounds, and I have no doubt I shall get it for one year on lease first to try, so that I shall do nothing to the house at first (last owner kept three cows, one horse, and one donkey, and sold some hay annually from one field). I have no doubt if we complete the purchase I shall at least save 1,000 pounds over Westcroft, or any other house we have seen. Emma was at first a good deal disappointed, and at the country round the house; the day was gloomy and cold with N.E. wind. She likes the actual field and house better than I; the house is just situated as she likes for retirement, not too near or too far from other houses, but she thinks the country looks desolate. I think all chalk countries do, but I am used to Cambridgeshire, which is ten times worse. Emma is rapidly coming round. She was dreadfully bad with toothache and headache in the evening and Friday, but in coming back yesterday she was so delighted with the scenery for the first few miles from Down, that it has worked a great change in her. We go there again the first fine day Emma is able, and we then finally settle what to do.

You must have been surprised not to have heard about the house earlier. Emma and I just got back yesterday afternoon from staying there. I'll give you my thoughts in detail, as my father would like—Emma's opinion is slightly different. Location: about a quarter mile from the small village of Down in Kent—16 miles from St. Paul's—8 and a half miles from a station (with many trains), which is only 10 from London. This is a downside, as the drive from the station is long due to the hills. I estimate it takes us about two hours to get from London Bridge. The village has around forty houses with old walnut trees in the center where an old flint church stands, and the lanes meet. The locals are very respectable—there's an infant school, and the grown-ups are great musicians—all tip their hats like they do in Wales and sit at their open doors in the evening; no major road goes through the village. The little pub where we stayed is also a grocery shop, and the landlord is the carpenter—so you can guess the style of the village. There's a butcher, a baker, and a post office. A carrier goes to London weekly and will call anywhere for anything and take anything anywhere. On the way from London to the village, the scenery is absolutely beautiful on a nice day: from near our house, the view is quite distant and rather pretty, but the house is located on a somewhat high tableland, which gives it a bit of a desolate air. There's a stunning old farmhouse with large thatched barns and old oak tree stumps, just one field away. What I find charming about the place is that almost every field is divided by one or more footpaths (just like ours, alas). I've never seen so many paths in any other county. The countryside is incredibly rural and quiet, with narrow lanes, high hedges, and hardly any ruts. It's really surprising to think London is only 16 miles away. The house is poorly positioned, close to a tiny lane and near another person's field. Our field is 15 acres and flat, looking into flat-bottomed valleys on both sides, but you can't see much from the drawing room, which faces south, except for our flat field and some rather ugly bits of the distant horizon. Directly in front, there are some old (very productive) cherry trees, walnut trees, yews, Spanish chestnuts, pears, old larches, Scotch firs, silver firs, and old mulberry trees, which create a rather nice group. They give the ground an older appearance, but their lack of vibrancy also makes it look somewhat desolate. There are quinces, medlars, and plenty of plums and Morello cherries; but few apples. The purple magnolia flowers bloom against the house. There is a really nice beech tree visible in our hedge. The kitchen garden is a terrible patch, and the soil looks horrible from all the chalk flints, but I truly believe it is productive. The hedges grow well all around our field, and it's known for its hayland. This year the crop was bad, but it was sold, as is, for £2 per acre—that's £30 total—and the buyer managed to harvest it. Last year it was sold for £45—with no fertilizer added in between. Doesn’t that sound good? Ask my father. Does the mulberry and magnolia suggest it won’t be very cold in winter, which I fear might be the case? Tell Susan it’s 9 miles from Knole Park and 6 from Westerham, where I hear the scenery is beautiful. There are many unique views around our house—deep flat-bottomed valleys and nice farmhouses, but also big, ugly, fallow fields; a lot of wheat is grown here. The house itself is unattractive, neither old nor new—its walls are two feet thick, the windows are rather small, and the lower floor is a bit low. The study is 18 x 18. The dining room is 21 x 18. The drawing room can easily be expanded; it's 21 x 15. There are three stories, plenty of bedrooms. We could host the Hensleighs, you, Susan, and Erasmus all together. The house is in good repair. Mr. Cresy spent £1,500 on it a few years ago and put on a new roof. There are water pipes throughout the house—two bathrooms—pretty good outbuildings and a nice stable yard, etc., plus a cottage. I believe the price is about £2,200, and I have no doubt I can get a one-year lease to try it out first, so I won’t be making any changes to the house at first (the last owner kept three cows, one horse, and one donkey, and sold some hay from one field every year). I’m confident that if we go through with the purchase, I will at least save £1,000 compared to Westcroft or any other house we’ve seen. Emma was quite disappointed at first, especially with the surroundings; the day was gloomy and cold with a northeast wind. She likes the actual field and house better than I do; the house is just where she prefers for privacy—not too close or too far from other houses—but she thinks the countryside looks desolate. I think all chalk landscapes have that feel, but I’m used to Cambridgeshire, which is ten times worse. Emma is quickly coming around. She was feeling terrible with toothache and headache in the evening and on Friday, but on the way back yesterday, she was so thrilled with the scenery for the first few miles from Down that it really changed her perspective. We’ll go back on the first nice day she’s able, and then we’ll make a final decision on what to do.

(12/2. The following fragmentary "Account of Down" was found among Mr. Darwin's papers after the publication of the "Life and Letters." It gives the impression that he intended to write a natural history diary after the manner of Gilbert White, but there is no evidence that this was actually the case.)

(12/2. The following incomplete "Account of Down" was discovered among Mr. Darwin's papers after the release of the "Life and Letters." It suggests that he planned to create a natural history diary similar to Gilbert White's style, but there's no proof that this was truly his intention.)

1843. May 15th.—The first peculiarity which strikes a stranger unaccustomed to a hilly chalk country is the valleys, with their steep rounded bottoms—not furrowed with the smallest rivulet. On the road to Down from Keston a mound has been thrown across a considerable valley, but even against this mound there is no appearance of even a small pool of water having collected after the heaviest rains. The water all percolates straight downwards. Ascertain average depth of wells, inclination of strata, and springs. Does the water from this country crop out in springs in Holmsdale or in the valley of the Thames? Examine the fine springs in Holmsdale.

1843. May 15th.—The first thing that stands out to a visitor unfamiliar with a hilly chalk landscape is the valleys, which have steep, rounded bottoms that aren’t shaped by even the tiniest stream. On the road from Keston to Down, there's a mound that has been built across a large valley, yet even against this mound, there’s no sign of a small pool of water collecting after heavy rains. All the water seeps straight down. Determine the average depth of wells, the angle of the layers, and the springs. Does the water from this area emerge as springs in Holmsdale or in the Thames valley? Check out the beautiful springs in Holmsdale.

The valleys on this platform sloping northward, but exceedingly even, generally run north and south; their sides near the summits generally become suddenly more abrupt, and are fringed with narrow strips, or, as they are here called, "shaws" of wood, sometimes merely by hedgerows run wild. The sudden steepness may generally be perceived, as just before ascending to Cudham Wood, and at Green Hill, where one of the lanes crosses these valleys. These valleys are in all probability ancient sea-bays, and I have sometimes speculated whether this sudden steepening of the sides does not mark the edges of vertical cliffs formed when these valleys were filled with sea-water, as would naturally happen in strata such as the chalk.

The valleys on this platform slope northward but are very flat, generally running north and south. The sides near the tops often become much steeper and are lined with narrow strips of woodland, or as they are called here, "shaws," sometimes just wild hedgerows. You can usually notice the sudden steepness just before you climb up to Cudham Wood and at Green Hill, where one of the lanes crosses these valleys. These valleys were probably ancient sea-bays, and I’ve sometimes wondered if this sudden steepness of the sides marks the edges of vertical cliffs formed when these valleys were filled with seawater, which would naturally happen in layers like chalk.

In most countries the roads and footpaths ascend along the bottoms of valleys, but here this is scarcely ever the case. All the villages and most of the ancient houses are on the platforms or narrow strips of flat land between the parallel valleys. Is this owing to the summits having existed from the most ancient times as open downs and the valleys having been filled up with brushwood? I have no evidence of this, but it is certain that most of the farmhouses on the flat land are very ancient. There is one peculiarity which would help to determine the footpaths to run along the summits instead of the bottom of the valleys, in that these latter in the middle are generally covered, even far more thickly than the general surface, with broken flints. This bed of flints, which gradually thins away on each side, can be seen from a long distance in a newly ploughed or fallow field as a whitish band. Every stone which ever rolls after heavy rain or from the kick of an animal, ever so little, all tend to the bottom of the valleys; but whether this is sufficient to account for their number I have sometimes doubted, and have been inclined to apply to the case Lyell's theory of solution by rain-water, etc., etc.

In most countries, roads and footpaths follow the bottoms of valleys, but here that's rarely the case. All the villages and many of the ancient houses are situated on the flat areas or narrow strips of land between the parallel valleys. Is this because the summits have always been open lands while the valleys have been filled with underbrush? I don't have proof of this, but it's clear that most of the farmhouses on the flat land are quite old. One unique aspect that suggests footpaths might run along the summits instead of the valley bottoms is that the valleys are usually covered, even more so than the surrounding land, with broken flints. This layer of flints, which gradually diminishes on either side, is visible from a distance in a freshly plowed or fallow field as a whitish band. Every stone that gets dislodged after heavy rain or from an animal's kick tends to roll down to the valley bottoms; however, I sometimes question whether this alone can explain their abundance, and I've considered applying Lyell's theory of dissolution by rainwater, etc., etc.

The flat summit-land is covered with a bed of stiff red clay, from a few feet in thickness to as much, I believe, as twenty feet: this {bed}, though lying immediately on the chalk, and abounding with great, irregularly shaped, unrolled flints, often with the colour and appearance of huge bones, which were originally embedded in the chalk, contains not a particle of carbonate of lime. This bed of red clay lies on a very irregular surface, and often descends into deep round wells, the origin of which has been explained by Lyell. In these cavities are patches of sand like sea-sand, and like the sand which alternates with the great beds of small pebbles derived from the wear-and-tear of chalk-flints, which form Keston, Hayes and Addington Commons. Near Down a rounded chalk-flint is a rarity, though some few do occur; and I have not yet seen a stone of distant origin, which makes a difference—at least to geological eyes—in the very aspect of the country, compared with all the northern counties.

The flat summit is covered with a layer of stiff red clay, ranging from a few feet thick to as much as twenty feet. This layer, which sits directly on the chalk and is full of large, unevenly shaped flints that often look like huge bones originally embedded in the chalk, contains no trace of carbonate of lime. This red clay layer rests on a very uneven surface and often drops into deep, round depressions, which Lyell has explained. In these holes, there are patches of sand similar to sea sand, as well as sand that alternates with large beds of small pebbles formed from the erosion of chalk-flints, which make up Keston, Hayes, and Addington Commons. Near Down, rounded chalk-flints are rare, although a few can be found; and I haven't yet seen a stone from a distant area, which makes a noticeable difference—at least to geologists—in the overall look of the landscape compared to all the northern counties.

The chalk-flints decay externally, which, according to Berzelius ("Edin. New Phil. Journal," late number), is owing to the flints containing a small proportion of alkali; but, besides this external decay, the whole body is affected by exposure of a few years, so that they will not break with clean faces for building.

The chalk-flints break down on the outside, which, according to Berzelius ("Edin. New Phil. Journal," latest issue), is due to the flints having a small amount of alkali; however, in addition to this external breakdown, the entire structure is impacted by just a few years of exposure, making them unsuitable for building because they won't break with clean edges.

This bed of red clay, which renders the country very slippery in the winter months from October to April, does not cover the sides of the valleys; these, when ploughed, show the white chalk, which tint shades away lower in the valley, as insensibly as a colour laid on by a painter's brush.

This red clay ground makes the area really slick during the winter months from October to April, but it doesn't cover the valley sides; when plowed, they reveal the white chalk underneath, which gradually fades out lower in the valley, almost like a color brushed on by a painter.

Nearly all the land is ploughed, and is often left fallow, which gives the country a naked red look, or not unfrequently white, from a covering of chalk laid on by the farmers. Nobody seems at all aware on what principle fresh chalk laid on land abounding with lime does it any good. This, however, is said to have been the practice of the country ever since the period of the Romans, and at present the many white pits on the hill sides, which so frequently afford a picturesque contrast with the overhanging yew trees, are all quarried for this purpose.

Almost all the land is plowed and often left unused, which gives the countryside a stark red appearance or sometimes a white color from the chalk spread by the farmers. No one really understands why adding fresh chalk to land that already has a lot of lime is beneficial. However, this practice is said to have been common since Roman times, and today, the numerous white pits on the hillsides, which often create a beautiful contrast with the overhanging yew trees, are all dug for this purpose.

The number of different kinds of bushes in the hedgerows, entwined by traveller's joy and the bryonies, is conspicuous compared with the hedges of the northern counties.

The variety of bushes in the hedgerows, intertwined with joey vines and bryonies, stands out compared to the hedges in the northern counties.

March 25th {1844?}.—The first period of vegetation, and the banks are clothed with pale-blue violets to an extent I have never seen equalled, and with primroses. A few days later some of the copses were beautifully enlivened by Ranunculus auricomus, wood anemones, and a white Stellaria. Again, subsequently, large areas were brilliantly blue with bluebells. The flowers are here very beautiful, and the number of flowers; {and} the darkness of the blue of the common little Polygala almost equals it to an alpine gentian.

March 25th {1844?}.—The first phase of spring is here, and the banks are covered in pale-blue violets like I've never seen before, along with primroses. A few days later, some of the wooded areas were beautifully brightened by Ranunculus auricomus, wood anemones, and a white Stellaria. Later on, large patches were brilliantly blue with bluebells. The flowers here are quite stunning, and the sheer number of blooms; {and} the deep blue of the common little Polygala is almost on par with an alpine gentian.

There are large tracts of woodland, {cut down} about once every ten years; some of these enclosures seem to be very ancient. On the south side of Cudham Wood a beech hedge has grown to Brobdignagian size, with several of the huge branches crossing each other and firmly grafted together.

There are large areas of woods, {cut down} about once every ten years; some of these sections look very old. On the south side of Cudham Wood, a beech hedge has grown to gigantic size, with several of the huge branches crossing each other and securely grafted together.

Larks abound here, and their songs sound most agreeably on all sides; nightingales are common. Judging from an odd cooing note, something like the purring of a cat, doves are very common in the woods.

Larks are everywhere, and their songs are really pleasant from all around; nightingales are also pretty common. From a strange cooing sound that’s somewhat like a cat's purr, it seems that doves are quite common in the woods.

June 25th.—The sainfoin fields are now of the most beautiful pink, and from the number of hive-bees frequenting them the humming noise is quite extraordinary. This humming is rather deeper than the humming overhead, which has been continuous and loud during all these last hot days over almost every field. The labourers here say it is made by "air-bees," and one man, seeing a wild bee in a flower different from the hive kind, remarked: "That, no doubt, is an air-bee." This noise is considered as a sign of settled fair weather.

June 25th.—The sainfoin fields are now a stunning shade of pink, and the sound of all the bees buzzing around them is quite remarkable. This buzzing is deeper than the constant, loud hum we’ve heard over nearly every field during these recent hot days. The local workers call it "air-bees," and one man, noticing a wild bee on a flower that wasn’t from a hive, commented, "That must be an air-bee." This buzzing is seen as a sign of stable good weather.

CHAPTER 1.II.—EVOLUTION, 1844-1858.

(Chapter II./1. Since the publication of the "Life and Letters," Mr. Huxley's obituary notice of Charles Darwin has appeared. (Chapter II./2. "Proc. R. Soc." volume 44, 1888, and "Collected Essays (Darwiniana)," page 253, 1899.) This masterly paper is, in our opinion, the finest of the great series of Darwinian essays which we owe to Mr. Huxley. We would venture to recommend it to our readers as the best possible introduction to these pages. There is, however, one small point in which we differ from Mr. Huxley. In discussing the growth of Mr. Darwin's evolutionary views, Mr. Huxley quotes from the autobiography (Chapter II./3. "Life and Letters," I., page 82. Some account of the origin of his evolutionary views is given in a letter to Jenyns (Blomefield), "Life and Letters," II. page 34.) a passage in which the writer describes the deep impression made on his mind by certain groups of facts observed in South America. Mr. Huxley goes on: "The facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but, until the relations of the existing with the extinct species, and of the species of the different geographical areas with one another, were determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation. It was not possible that this determination should have been effected before the return of the "Beagle" to England; and thus the date (Chapter II./4. The date in question is July 1837, when he "opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species.') which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind, becomes intelligible." This seems to us inconsistent with Darwin's own statement that it was especially the character of the "species on Galapagos Archipelago" which had impressed him. (Chapter II./5. See "Life and Letters," I., page 276.) This must refer to the zoological specimens: no doubt he was thinking of the birds, but these he had himself collected in 1835 (Chapter II./6. He wrote in his "Journal," page 394, "My attention was first thoroughly aroused, by comparing together the numerous specimens shot by myself and several other parties on board," etc.), and no accurate determination of the forms was necessary to impress on him the remarkable characteristic species of the different islands. We agree with Mr. Huxley that 1837 is the date of the "new light which was rising in his mind." That the dawn did not come sooner seems to us to be accounted for by the need of time to produce so great a revolution in his conceptions. We do not see that Mr. Huxley's supposition as to the effect of the determination of species, etc., has much weight. Mr. Huxley quotes a letter from Darwin to Zacharias, "But I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years {after 1837} had elapsed" (see Letter 278). This passage, which it must be remembered was written in 1877, is all but irreconcilable with the direct evidence of the 1837 note-book. A series of passages are quoted from it in the "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 5 et seq., and these it is impossible to read without feeling that he was convinced of immutability. He had not yet attained to a clear idea of Natural Selection, and therefore his views may not have had, even to himself, the irresistible convincing power they afterwards gained; but that he was, in the ordinary sense of the word, convinced of the truth of the doctrine of evolution we cannot doubt. He thought it "almost useless" to try to prove the truth of evolution until the cause of change was discovered. And it is natural that in later life he should have felt that conviction was wanting till that cause was made out. (Chapter II./7. See "Charles Darwin, his Life told, etc." 1892, page 165.) For the purposes of the present chapter the point is not very material. We know that in 1842 he wrote the first sketch of his theory, and that it was greatly amplified in 1844. So that, at the date of the first letters of this chapter, we know that he had a working hypothesis of evolution which did not differ in essentials from that given in the "Origin of Species."

(Chapter II./1. Since the release of the "Life and Letters," Mr. Huxley's obituary for Charles Darwin has been published. (Chapter II./2. "Proc. R. Soc." volume 44, 1888, and "Collected Essays (Darwiniana)," page 253, 1899.) This outstanding paper is, in our opinion, the best among the significant series of Darwinian essays we owe to Mr. Huxley. We recommend it to our readers as the best introduction to these pages. However, there's one small point where we differ from Mr. Huxley. When discussing the development of Mr. Darwin's evolutionary ideas, Mr. Huxley cites from the autobiography (Chapter II./3. "Life and Letters," I., page 82. Some details on the origin of his evolutionary views can be found in a letter to Jenyns (Blomefield), "Life and Letters," II. page 34.) a section where the author describes the strong impression made on him by certain groups of facts he observed in South America. Mr. Huxley continues: "The facts mentioned here were certainly well suited to capture the attention of a philosophical thinker; however, until the relationships between existing and extinct species, and among species from different geographical areas, were established with some accuracy, they provided an unreliable foundation for speculation. It wasn't possible for this determination to take place before the return of the "Beagle" to England; therefore, the date (Chapter II./4. The date in question is July 1837, when he "opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species.') that Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to the emerging insights in his mind becomes understandable." This seems inconsistent with Darwin's own assertion that it was specifically the nature of the "species on the Galapagos Archipelago" that impressed him. (Chapter II./5. See "Life and Letters," I., page 276.) This must refer to the zoological samples: he was likely thinking of the birds, which he personally collected in 1835 (Chapter II./6. He wrote in his "Journal," page 394, "My attention was first thoroughly aroused by comparing the numerous specimens shot by myself and several other parties on board," etc.), and no precise identification of the forms was necessary to make a strong impression on him regarding the unique characteristic species of the different islands. We agree with Mr. Huxley that 1837 marks the start of the "new light rising in his mind." It seems that the delay in this realization relates to the time needed to undergo such a significant change in his ideas. We don't think Mr. Huxley's assumption about the impact of determining species, etc., holds much weight. Mr. Huxley cites a letter from Darwin to Zacharias, "But I didn't become convinced that species were changeable until, I think, two or three years {after 1837} had passed" (see Letter 278). This line, noted to have been written in 1877, is almost irreconcilable with the direct evidence from the 1837 notebook. A series of passages are quoted from it in the "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 5 et seq., and it's impossible to read these without sensing that he was convinced of immutability. He had yet to develop a clear understanding of Natural Selection, so his views may not have had the compelling persuasive strength they later achieved; but we can't doubt that he was, in the ordinary understanding of the word, convinced of the validity of the evolution doctrine. He felt it was "almost useless" to try to prove the truth of evolution until the cause of change was found. It’s natural that in his later years he would have thought that conviction was lacking until that cause was identified. (Chapter II./7. See "Charles Darwin, his Life told, etc." 1892, page 165.) For the purposes of this chapter, this point isn't very significant. We know that in 1842 he wrote the first draft of his theory, which was significantly expanded in 1844. So, by the time of the first letters in this chapter, we know he had a working hypothesis of evolution that didn't differ in essential points from what he presented in the "Origin of Species."

To realise the amount of work that was in progress during the period covered by Chapter II., it should be remembered that during part of the time—namely, from 1846 to 1854—he was largely occupied by his work on the Cirripedes. (Chapter II./8. "Life and Letters," I. page 346.) This research would have fully occupied a less methodical workman, and even to those who saw him at work it seemed his whole occupation. Thus (to quote a story of Lord Avebury's) one of Mr. Darwin's children is said to have asked, in regard to a neighbour, "Then where does he do his barnacles?" as though not merely his father, but all other men, must be occupied on that group.

To understand the amount of work that was happening during the time covered by Chapter II, it's important to keep in mind that for part of that period—from 1846 to 1854—he was heavily focused on his research on the Cirripedes. (Chapter II./8. "Life and Letters," I. page 346.) This research would have completely consumed a less organized worker, and even for those who observed him, it seemed like all he did. So, as a story from Lord Avebury goes, one of Mr. Darwin's children reportedly asked about a neighbor, "Then where does he do his barnacles?" as if not only their father but all other men must be working on that topic.

Sir Joseph Hooker, to whom the first letter in this chapter is addressed, was good enough to supply a note on the origin of his intimacy with Mr. Darwin, and this is published in the "Life and Letters." (Chapter II./9. Ibid., II., page 19. See also "Nature," 1899, June 22nd, page 187, where some reminiscences are published, which formed part of Sir Joseph's speech at the unveiling of Darwin's statue in the Oxford Museum.) The close intercourse that sprang up between them was largely carried on by correspondence, and Mr. Darwin's letters to Sir Joseph have supplied most valuable biographical material. But it should not be forgotten that, quite apart from this, science owes much to this memorable friendship, since without Hooker's aid Darwin's great work would hardly have been carried out on the botanical side. And Sir Joseph did far more than supply knowledge and guidance in technical matters: Darwin owed to him a sympathetic and inspiriting comradeship which cheered and refreshed him to the end of his life.

Sir Joseph Hooker, to whom the first letter in this chapter is addressed, was kind enough to provide a note on how his friendship with Mr. Darwin began, which is published in the "Life and Letters." (Chapter II./9. Ibid., II., page 19. See also "Nature," June 22, 1899, page 187, where some memories are published that were part of Sir Joseph's speech at the unveiling of Darwin's statue in the Oxford Museum.) The strong connection that developed between them was mainly maintained through letters, and Mr. Darwin's correspondence with Sir Joseph has provided very valuable biographical information. However, it shouldn't be overlooked that, apart from this, science owes a lot to this significant friendship because, without Hook's support, Darwin's major work would hardly have succeeded on the botanical side. And Sir Joseph contributed much more than just knowledge and guidance on technical issues: Darwin was grateful for the supportive and inspiring companionship that encouraged and revitalized him until the end of his life.

A sentence from a letter to Hooker written in 1845 shows, quite as well as more serious utterances, how quickly the acquaintance grew into friendship.

A sentence from a letter to Hooker written in 1845 shows, just like more serious comments, how quickly the acquaintance turned into friendship.

"Farewell! What a good thing is community of tastes! I feel as if I had known you for fifty years. Adios." And in illustration of the permanence of the sympathetic bond between them, we quote a letter of 1881 written forty-two years after the first meeting with Sir Joseph in Trafalgar Square (see "Life and Letters," II., page 19). Mr. Darwin wrote: "Your letter has cheered me, and the world does not look a quarter so black this morning as it did when I wrote before. Your friendly words are worth their weight in gold.")

"Goodbye! It's amazing how much we share the same tastes! I feel like I've known you for fifty years. Take care." To illustrate the lasting connection between them, we quote a letter from 1881 written forty-two years after their first meeting with Sir Joseph in Trafalgar Square (see "Life and Letters," II., page 19). Mr. Darwin wrote: "Your letter has lifted my spirits, and the world looks a lot less bleak this morning than it did when I last wrote. Your kind words are truly priceless."

LETTER 13. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday {January 11th, 1844}.

My dear Sir

Dear Sir

I must write to thank you for your last letter, and to tell you how much all your views and facts interest me. I must be allowed to put my own interpretation on what you say of "not being a good arranger of extended views"—which is, that you do not indulge in the loose speculations so easily started by every smatterer and wandering collector. I look at a strong tendency to generalise as an entire evil.

I have to write to thank you for your last letter and to express how much I appreciate all your insights and information. I hope it's okay for me to interpret what you mean by "not being a good arranger of extended views"—which I take to mean that you don't get caught up in the vague speculations that every casual thinker and wandering collector loves to throw around. I see a strong tendency to generalize as a complete drawback.

What you say of Mr. Brown is humiliating; I had suspected it, but would not allow myself to believe in such heresy. Fitz-Roy gave him a rap in his preface (13/1. In the preface to the "Surveying Voyages of the 'Adventure' and the 'Beagle,' 1826-30, forming Volume I of the work, which includes the later voyage of the "Beagle," Captain Fitz-Roy wrote (March, 1839): "Captain King took great pains in forming and preserving a botanical collection, aided by a person embarked solely for that purpose. He placed this collection in the British Museum, and was led to expect that a first-rate botanist would have examined and described it; but he has been disappointed." A reference to Robert Brown's dilatoriness over King's collection occurs in the "Life and Letters," I., page 274, note.), and made him very indignant, but it seems a much harder one would not have been wasted. My cryptogamic collection was sent to Berkeley; it was not large. I do not believe he has yet published an account, but he wrote to me some year ago that he had described {the specimens} and mislaid all his descriptions. Would it not be well for you to put yourself in communication with him, as otherwise something will perhaps be twice laboured over? My best (though poor) collection of the cryptogams was from the Chonos Islands.

What you’re saying about Mr. Brown is embarrassing; I had my suspicions, but wouldn't let myself believe such nonsense. Fitz-Roy took a jab at him in his preface (13/1. In the preface to the "Surveying Voyages of the 'Adventure' and the 'Beagle,' 1826-30, forming Volume I of the work, which includes the later voyage of the "Beagle," Captain Fitz-Roy wrote (March, 1839): "Captain King put a lot of effort into creating and maintaining a botanical collection, with help from someone who was exclusively on board for that purpose. He donated this collection to the British Museum, expecting that a top botanist would examine and describe it; however, he has been let down." A reference to Robert Brown's slowness regarding King's collection can be found in the "Life and Letters," I., page 274, note.), which really upset him, but it seems like a much stronger criticism wouldn’t have been out of place. I sent my cryptogamic collection to Berkeley; it wasn’t large. I don’t think he’s published anything about it yet, but he wrote to me a while ago saying he had described the specimens and then misplaced all his notes. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for you to get in touch with him? Otherwise, someone might end up doing the same work twice. My best (although small) collection of the cryptogams came from the Chonos Islands.

Would you kindly observe one little fact for me, whether any species of plant, peculiar to any island, as Galapagos, St. Helena, or New Zealand, where there are no large quadrupeds, have hooked seeds—such hooks as, if observed here, would be thought with justness to be adapted to catch into wool of animals.

Could you please check one small detail for me? Do any plant species that are unique to islands like the Galapagos, St. Helena, or New Zealand—where there are no large mammals—have hooked seeds? These hooks, if found here, would reasonably be thought to be designed to snag into the wool of animals.

Would you further oblige me some time by informing me (though I forget this will certainly appear in your "Antarctic Flora") whether in islands like St. Helena, Galapagos, and New Zealand, the number of families and genera are large compared with the number of species, as happens in coral islands, and as, I believe, in the extreme Arctic land. Certainly this is the case with marine shells in extreme Arctic seas. Do you suppose the fewness of species in proportion to number of large groups in coral islets is owing to the chance of seeds from all orders getting drifted to such new spots, as I have supposed. Did you collect sea-shells in Kerguelen-land? I should like to know their character.

Could you do me a favor and let me know (although I realize this will definitely be included in your "Antarctic Flora") whether in islands like St. Helena, the Galapagos, and New Zealand, the number of families and genera is large compared to the number of species, as is the case in coral islands, and, I believe, in the far Arctic lands. This is certainly true for marine shells in the extreme Arctic seas. Do you think the low number of species relative to the number of large groups on coral islets is because seeds from all types are randomly carried to these new locations, as I've suggested? Did you collect seashells in Kerguelen-land? I’d really like to know what they are like.

Your interesting letters tempt me to be very unreasonable in asking you questions; but you must not give yourself any trouble about them, for I know how fully and worthily you are employed. (13/2. The rest of the letter has been previously published in "Life and Letters," II., page 23.)

Your captivating letters make me want to ask you a lot of questions, but you shouldn’t worry about them at all because I understand how busy and engaged you are. (13/2. The rest of the letter has been previously published in "Life and Letters," II., page 23.)

Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc., and with the character of the American fossil mammifers, etc., that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact which could bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a "tendency to progression," "adaptations from the slow willing of animals," etc.! But the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I think I have found out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and think to yourself, "on what a man have I been wasting my time and writing to." I should, five years ago, have thought so...(13/3. On the questions here dealt with see the interesting letter to Jenyns in the "Life and Letters," II., page 34.)

Besides my general interest in the southern lands, I've been engaged in a pretty ambitious project since my return, and I know no one who wouldn’t consider it a foolish one. I was so taken by the distribution of the Galapagos organisms and the characteristics of American fossil mammals that I decided to gather every type of fact that could relate to what defines species. I’ve read countless agricultural and horticultural books and have continuously collected data. Finally, I’ve started to see some insights, and I'm almost convinced (in stark contrast to my initial belief) that species are not (confessing this feels like admitting a crime) unchangeable. Heaven help me from Lamarck's silly ideas about "tendency to progression," "adaptations from the slow willingness of animals," and so on! However, my conclusions aren’t that different from his, even though the mechanisms of change are entirely different. I think I've figured out (here's my bold claim!) the straightforward way that species become perfectly adapted to different purposes. You’re probably rolling your eyes and thinking, "What a waste of my time and effort writing to this person." Five years ago, I would have thought the same... (13/3. On the questions here dealt with see the interesting letter to Jenyns in the "Life and Letters," II., page 34.)

LETTER 14. TO J.D. HOOKER. {November} 1844.

...What a curious, wonderful case is that of the Lycopodium! (14/1. Sir J.D. Hooker wrote, November 8, 1844: "I am firmly convinced (but not enough to print it) that L. Selago varies in Van Diemen's Land into L. varium. Two more different SPECIES (as they have hitherto been thought), per se cannot be conceived, but nowhere else do they vary into one another, nor does Selago vary at all in England.")...I suppose you would hardly have expected them to be more varying than a phanerogamic plant. I trust you will work the case out, and, even if unsupported, publish it, for you can surely do this with due caution. I have heard of some analogous facts, though on the smallest scale, in certain insects being more variable in one district than in another, and I think the same holds with some land-shells. By a strange chance I had noted to ask you in this letter an analogous question, with respect to genera, in lieu of individual species,—that is, whether you know of any case of a genus with most of its species being variable (say Rubus) in one continent, having another set of species in another continent non-variable, or not in so marked a manner. Mr. Herbert (14/2. No doubt Dean Herbert, the horticulturist. See "Life and Letters," I., page 343.) incidentally mentioned in a letter to me that the heaths at the Cape of Good Hope were very variable, whilst in Europe they are (?) not so; but then the species here are few in comparison, so that the case, even if true, is not a good one. In some genera of insects the variability appears to be common in distant parts of the world. In shells, I hope hereafter to get much light on this question through fossils. If you can help me, I should be very much obliged: indeed, all your letters are most useful to me.

...What a fascinating and intriguing case the Lycopodium is! (14/1. Sir J.D. Hooker wrote on November 8, 1844: "I’m convinced (but not enough to publish it) that L. Selago varies in Van Diemen's Land into L. varium. It’s hard to imagine two more different SPECIES (as they’ve been considered), but they don’t vary into one another anywhere else, nor does Selago show any variation in England.")...I bet you wouldn't have expected them to vary more than a flowering plant. I hope you can figure this case out, and even if it’s not supported, publish it, because you can definitely do this with the right caution. I've heard of some similar facts, although on a smaller scale, where certain insects are more variable in one area than another, and I think the same applies to some land snails. By a strange coincidence, I had meant to ask you in this letter a similar question about genera rather than individual species—specifically, whether you know of any genus with most of its species being variable (like Rubus) in one continent but having a different set of species in another continent that are non-variable or not as noticeably variable. Mr. Herbert (14/2. No doubt Dean Herbert, the horticulturist. See "Life and Letters," I., page 343.) casually mentioned in a letter to me that the heaths at the Cape of Good Hope are very variable, while in Europe they are (?) not as much; but then there are fewer species here, so even if that's true, it’s not a strong case. In some insect genera, variability seems to be common in far-off parts of the world. I hope to gain more insight into this question through fossils in the future. If you can assist me, I would greatly appreciate it; your letters are always so helpful to me.

MONDAY:—Now for your first long letter, and to me quite as interesting as long. Several things are quite new to me in it—viz., for one, your belief that there are more extra-tropical than intra-tropical species. I see that my argument from the Arctic regions is false, and I should not have tried to argue against you, had I not fancied that you thought that equability of climate was the direct cause of the creation of a greater or lesser number of species. I see you call our climate equable; I should have thought it was the contrary. Anyhow, the term is vague, and in England will depend upon whether a person compares it with the United States or Tierra del Fuego. In my Journal (page 342) I see I state that in South Chiloe, at a height of about 1,000 feet, the forests had a Fuegian aspect: I distinctly recollect that at the sea-level in the middle of Chiloe the forest had almost a tropical aspect. I should like much to hear, if you make out, whether the N. or S. boundaries of a plant are the most restricted; I should have expected that the S. would be, in the temperate regions, from the number of antagonist species being greater. N.B. Humboldt, when in London, told me of some river (14/3. The Obi (see "Flora Antarctica," page 211, note). Hooker writes: "Some of the most conspicuous trees attain either of its banks, but do not cross them.") in N.E. Europe, on the opposite banks of which the flora was, on the same soil and under same climate, widely different!

MONDAY:—Here’s your first long letter, and it’s just as interesting to me as it is long. There are several new things for me in it—like your belief that there are more extra-tropical species than intra-tropical ones. I realize that my argument from the Arctic regions is incorrect, and I wouldn’t have tried to argue against you if I hadn’t thought you believed that a consistent climate was the main reason for having more or fewer species. I see you refer to our climate as equable; I would have guessed it’s the opposite. Anyway, that term is vague, and in England, it depends on whether someone is comparing it with the United States or Tierra del Fuego. In my Journal (page 342), I noted that in South Chiloe, at about 1,000 feet up, the forests looked Fuegian. I distinctly remember that at sea level in the middle of Chiloe, the forest almost had a tropical look. I’d really like to know if you figure out whether the northern or southern boundaries of a plant are more restricted; I would expect the southern ones to be, in temperate regions, since there are more competing species. By the way, Humboldt told me in London about a river (14/3. The Obi (see "Flora Antarctica," page 211, note). Hooker writes: "Some of the most conspicuous trees attain either of its banks, but do not cross them.") in Northeast Europe, where the flora on opposite banks was very different, even though the soil and climate were the same!

I forget (14/4. The last paragraph is published in "Life and Letters," II., page 29.) my last letter, but it must have been a very silly one, as it seems I gave my notion of the number of species being in great degree governed by the degree to which the area had been often isolated and divided. I must have been cracked to have written it, for I have no evidence, without a person be willing to admit all my views, and then it does follow.

I don’t remember my last letter, but it must have been pretty foolish since I shared my idea that the number of species is largely influenced by how much the area has been isolated and divided over time. I must have been out of my mind to write that because I don’t have any proof unless someone is willing to accept all my views, and then it does connect.

(14/5. The remainder of the foregoing letter is published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 29. It is interesting as giving his views on the mutability of species. Thus he wrote: "With respect to books on this subject, I do not know any systematical ones, except Lamarck's, which is veritable rubbish; but there are plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, etc., on the view of the immutability." By "Pritchard" is no doubt intended James Cowles "Prichard," author of the "Physical History of Mankind." Prof. Poulton has given in his paper, "A remarkable Anticipation of Modern Views on Evolution" (14/6. "Science Progress," Volume I., April 1897, page 278.), an interesting study of Prichard's work. He shows that Prichard was in advance of his day in his views on the non-transmission of acquired characters. Prof. Poulton also tries to show that Prichard was an evolutionist. He allows that Prichard wrote with hesitation, and that in the later editions of his book his views became weaker. But, even with these qualifications, we think that Poulton has unintentionally exaggerated the degree to which Prichard believed in evolution.

(14/5. The rest of the previous letter is published in "Life and Letters," II., page 29. It’s interesting because it shares his thoughts on the changeability of species. He wrote: "Regarding books on this topic, I don’t know of any systematic ones except for Lamarck’s, which is truly nonsense; but there are plenty, like Lyell, Pritchard, etc., that support the idea of immutability." By "Pritchard," he is likely referring to James Cowles "Prichard," author of "The Physical History of Mankind." Prof. Poulton has provided an intriguing analysis of Prichard's work in his paper, "A Remarkable Anticipation of Modern Views on Evolution" (14/6. "Science Progress," Volume I., April 1897, page 278.), highlighting that Prichard was ahead of his time regarding the non-transmission of acquired traits. Prof. Poulton also attempts to argue that Prichard was an evolutionist. He acknowledges that Prichard wrote with uncertainty and that in the later editions of his book, his views softened. However, even with these caveats, we believe that Poulton has unintentionally overstated the extent of Prichard's belief in evolution.

One of Prichard's strongest sentences is quoted by Poulton (loc. cit., page 16); it occurs in the "Physical History of Mankind," Ed. 2, Volume II., page 570:—

One of Prichard's strongest sentences is quoted by Poulton (loc. cit., page 16); it appears in the "Physical History of Mankind," 2nd Ed., Volume II, page 570:—

"Is it not probable that the varieties which spring up within the limits of particular species are further adaptations of structure to the circumstances under which the tribe is destined to exist? Varieties branch out from the common form of a species, just as the forms of species deviate from the common type of a genus. Why should the one class of phenomena be without end or utility, a mere effect of contingency or chance, more than the other?"

"Isn't it likely that the different varieties that appear within specific species are actually adaptations of their structure to the conditions in which the species is meant to live? Varieties emerge from the common form of a species, just as the forms of species differ from the common type of a genus. Why should one type of phenomenon be endless or without purpose, merely a result of chance, while the other isn't?"

If this passage, and others similar to it, stood alone, we might agree with Prof. Poulton; but this is impossible when we find in Volume I. of the same edition, page 90, the following uncompromising statement of immutability:—

If this passage, and others like it, were taken on their own, we might agree with Prof. Poulton; but that’s not possible when we see in Volume I. of the same edition, page 90, the following clear statement of unchangeability:—

"The meaning attached to the term species, in natural history, is very simple and obvious. It includes only one circumstance—namely, an original distinctness and constant transmission of any character. A race of animals, or plants, marked by any peculiarities of structure which have always been constant and undeviating, constitutes a species."

"The meaning of the term species in natural history is straightforward and clear. It refers to one key aspect—specifically, an original distinctness and the consistent transfer of any trait. A group of animals or plants that are characterized by unique structural features that have remained stable and unchanged constitutes a species."

On page 91, in speaking of the idea that the species which make up a genus may have descended from a common form, he says:—

On page 91, discussing the idea that the species within a genus might have evolved from a common ancestor, he states:—

"There must, indeed, be some principle on which the phenomena of resemblance, as well as those of diversity, may be explained; and the reference of several forms to a common type seems calculated to suggest the idea of some original affinity; but, as this is merely a conjecture, it must be kept out of sight when our inquiries respect matters of fact only."

"There has to be some principle that explains both the phenomena of similarity and those of difference; and linking various forms to a common prototype suggests the idea of some original connection. However, since this is just a guess, we need to set it aside when our investigations are focused solely on facts."

This view is again given in Volume II., page 569, where he asks whether we should believe that "at the first production of a genus, when it first grew into existence, some slight modification in the productive causes stamped it originally with all these specific diversities? Or is it most probable that the modification was subsequent to its origin, and that the genus at its first creation was one and uniform, and afterwards became diversified by the influence of external agents?" He concludes that "the former of these suppositions is the conclusion to which we are led by all that can be ascertained respecting the limits of species, and the extent of variation under the influence of causes at present existing and operating."

This perspective is also presented in Volume II, page 569, where he questions whether we should believe that "when a genus first came into being, a small change in the productive causes gave it all these specific differences right from the start? Or is it more likely that the change happened after its origin, suggesting that the genus was originally uniform and later became diverse due to external factors?" He concludes that "the first of these possibilities is the conclusion we draw from everything we can determine about the boundaries of species and the degree of variation influenced by current and active causes."

In spite of the fact that Prichard did not carry his ideas to their logical conclusion, it may perhaps excite surprise that Mr. Darwin should have spoken of him as absolutely on the side of immutability.

In spite of the fact that Prichard didn’t fully develop his ideas, it might still be surprising that Mr. Darwin referred to him as completely supporting the idea of immutability.

We believe it to be partly accounted for (as Poulton suggests) by the fact that Mr. Darwin possessed only the third edition (1836 and 1837) and the fourth edition (1841-51). (14/7. The edition of 1841-51 consists of reprints of the third edition and three additional volumes of various dates. Volumes I. and II. are described in the title-page as the fourth edition; Volumes III. and IV. as the third edition, and Volume V. has no edition marked in the title.) In neither of these is the evolutionary point of view so strong as in the second edition.

We think this can be partly explained (as Poulton points out) by the fact that Mr. Darwin only had the third edition (1836 and 1837) and the fourth edition (1841-51). (14/7. The 1841-51 edition includes reprints of the third edition along with three additional volumes from various dates. Volumes I and II are labeled as the fourth edition in the title page; Volumes III and IV are labeled as the third edition, and Volume V doesn’t have an edition listed in the title.) In neither of these editions is the evolutionary perspective as strong as it is in the second edition.

We have gone through all the passages marked by Mr. Darwin for future reference in the third and fourth editions, and have been only able to find the following, which occurs in the third edition (Volume I., 1836, page 242) (14/8. There is also (ed. 1837, Volume II., page 344) a vague reference to Natural Selection, of which the last sentence is enclosed in pencil in inverted commas, as though Mr. Darwin had intended to quote it: "In other parts of Africa the xanthous variety {of man} often appears, but does not multiply. Individuals thus characterised are like seeds which perish in an uncongenial soil.")

We reviewed all the passages marked by Mr. Darwin for future reference in the third and fourth editions and could only find the following, which appears in the third edition (Volume I., 1836, page 242) (14/8). There is also (ed. 1837, Volume II., page 344) a vague reference to Natural Selection, with the last sentence marked in pencil in quotation marks, as if Mr. Darwin intended to quote it: "In other parts of Africa, the xanthous variety {of man} often appears but does not multiply. Individuals characterized this way are like seeds that perish in an unsuitable environment."

"The variety in form, prevalent among all organised productions of nature, is found to subsist between individual beings of whatever species, even when they are offspring of the same parents. Another circumstance equally remarkable is the tendency which exists in almost every tribe, whether of animals or of plants, to transmit to their offspring and to perpetuate in their race all individual peculiarities which may thus have taken their rise. These two general facts in the economy of organised beings lay a foundation for the existence of diversified races, originating from the same primitive stock and within the limits of identical species."

The variety in form that exists among all organized productions of nature is evident among individual beings of any species, even those that are offspring of the same parents. Another striking aspect is the tendency in almost every group, whether of animals or plants, to pass on to their offspring and maintain in their lineage all individual traits that may have developed. These two broad facts about organized beings provide a basis for the existence of diverse races that come from the same original stock and within the boundaries of the same species.

On the following page (page 243) a passage (not marked by Mr. Darwin) emphasises the limitation which Prichard ascribed to the results of variation and inheritance:—

On the next page (page 243), a passage (not highlighted by Mr. Darwin) highlights the limitations that Prichard attributed to the outcomes of variation and inheritance:—

"Even those physiologists who contend for what is termed the indefinite nature of species admit that they have limits at present and under ordinary circumstances. Whatever diversities take place happen without breaking in upon the characteristic type of the species. This is transmitted from generation to generation: goats produce goats, and sheep, sheep."

"Even those physiologists who argue for what is called the indefinite nature of species acknowledge that they have limits at present and under normal circumstances. Any variations that occur happen without changing the fundamental type of the species. This is passed down from generation to generation: goats produce goats, and sheep produce sheep."

The passage on page 242 occurs in the reprint of the 1836-7 edition which forms part of the 1841-51 edition, but is not there marked by Mr. Darwin. He notes at the end of Volume I. of the 1836-7 edition: "March, 1857. I have not looked through all these {i.e. marked passages}, but I have gone through the later edition"; and a similar entry is in Volume II. of the third edition. It is therefore easy to understand how he came to overlook the passage on page 242 when he began the fuller statement of his species theory which is referred to in the "Life and Letters" as the "unfinished book." In the historical sketch prefixed to the "Origin of Species" writers are named as precursors whose claims are less strong than Prichard's, and it is certain that Mr. Darwin would have given an account of him if he had thought of him as an evolutionist.

The passage on page 242 appears in the reprint of the 1836-7 edition, which is part of the 1841-51 edition, but Mr. Darwin doesn’t mark it there. He mentions at the end of Volume I of the 1836-7 edition: "March, 1857. I haven't gone through all these {i.e. marked passages}, but I have reviewed the later edition"; and a similar note is in Volume II of the third edition. So, it's easy to see how he might have missed the passage on page 242 when he started the more detailed explanation of his species theory referred to in the "Life and Letters" as the "unfinished book." In the historical sketch at the beginning of the "Origin of Species," writers are mentioned as forerunners whose claims aren’t as strong as Prichard's, and it’s clear that Mr. Darwin would have acknowledged him if he had regarded him as an evolutionist.

The two following passages will show that Mr. Darwin was, from his knowledge of Prichard's books, justified in classing him among those who did not believe in the mutability of species:

The two following passages will show that Mr. Darwin was justified in classifying Prichard among those who did not believe in the mutability of species based on his knowledge of Prichard's books:

"The various tribes of organised beings were originally placed by the Creator in certain regions, for which they are by their nature peculiarly adapted. Each species had only one beginning in a single stock: probably a single pair, as Linnaeus supposed, was first called into being in some particular spot, and the progeny left to disperse themselves to as great a distance from the original centre of their existence as the locomotive powers bestowed on them, or their capability of bearing changes of climate and other physical agencies, may have enabled them to wander." (14/9. Prichard, third edition, 1836-7, Volume I., page 96.)

"The various tribes of organized beings were originally placed by the Creator in certain regions to which they are uniquely suited by their nature. Each species had only one beginning from a single lineage: likely a single pair, as Linnaeus suggested, was first brought into existence in a specific location, and their offspring were left to spread out as far from the original center of their existence as their ability to move or adapt to changes in climate and other physical factors allowed them to travel." (14/9. Prichard, third edition, 1836-7, Volume I., page 96.)

The second passage is annotated by Mr. Darwin with a shower of exclamation marks:

The second passage is marked up by Mr. Darwin with a bunch of exclamation marks:

"The meaning attached to the term SPECIES in natural history is very definite and intelligible. It includes only the following conditions—namely, separate origin and distinctness of race, evinced by the constant transmission of some characteristic peculiarity of organisation. A race of animals or of plants marked by any peculiar character which has always been constant and undeviating constitutes a species; and two races are considered as specifically different, if they are distinguished from each other by some characteristic which one cannot be supposed to have acquired, or the other to have lost through any known operation of physical causes; for we are hence led to conclude that the tribes thus distinguished have not descended from the same original stock." (14/10. Prichard, ed. 1836-7, Volume I., page 106. This passage is almost identical with that quoted from the second edition, Volume I., page 90. The latter part, from "and two races...," occurs in the second edition, though not quoted above.)

The meaning of the term SPECIES in natural history is quite clear and understandable. It covers only the following conditions: separate origins and distinct differences in race, shown by the consistent inheritance of a specific characteristic. A group of animals or plants that has a unique trait that has remained constant over time is considered a species; two groups are viewed as specifically different if they are marked by a characteristic that one group couldn't have gained or the other one lost due to any known physical causes. Therefore, we can conclude that the groups identified this way have not come from the same original lineage. (14/10. Prichard, ed. 1836-7, Volume I., page 106. This passage is almost identical to that quoted from the second edition, Volume I., page 90. The latter part, starting from "and two races...," appears in the second edition, even if it's not quoted above.)

As was his custom, Mr. Darwin pinned at the end of the first volume of the 1841-51 edition a piece of paper containing a list of the pages where marked passages occur. This paper bears, written in pencil, "How like my book all this will be!" The words appear to refer to Prichard's discussion on the dispersal of animals and plants; they certainly do not refer to the evolutionary views to be found in the book.)

As was his habit, Mr. Darwin attached a piece of paper at the end of the first volume of the 1841-51 edition, which included a list of the pages where highlighted passages could be found. This paper has a note, written in pencil, stating, "How much this resembles my book!" The note seems to relate to Prichard's discussion on the spread of animals and plants; it clearly does not pertain to the evolutionary ideas presented in the book.

LETTER 15. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1844}.

Thank you exceedingly for your long letter, and I am in truth ashamed of the time and trouble you have taken for me; but I must some day write again to you on the subject of your letter. I will only now observe that you have extended my remark on the range of species of shells into the range of genera or groups. Analogy from shells would only go so far, that if two or three species...were found to range from America to India, they would be found to extend through an unusual thickness of strata—say from the Upper Cretaceous to its lowest bed, or the Neocomian. Or you may reverse it and say those species which range throughout the whole Cretaceous, will have wide ranges: viz., from America through Europe to India (this is one actual case with shells in the Cretaceous period).

Thank you so much for your lengthy letter, and I genuinely feel bad about the time and effort you've spent on me; however, I will write to you again one day regarding the topic of your letter. For now, I’ll just point out that you've taken my comment on the variety of shell species and expanded it to the level of genera or groups. The analogy with shells only goes so far; if two or three species were found ranging from America to India, they would likely be found in a significant thickness of strata—let's say from the Upper Cretaceous to its lowest bed, or the Neocomian. Alternatively, you could say that those species which extend throughout the entire Cretaceous will have large ranges: for example, from America through Europe to India (this is one real case with shells from the Cretaceous period).

LETTER 16. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1845}.

I ought to have written sooner to say that I am very willing to subscribe 1 pound 1 shilling to the African man (though it be murder on a small scale), and will send you a Post-office-order payable to Kew, if you will be so good as to take charge of it. Thanks for your information about the Antarctic Zoology; I got my numbers when in Town on Thursday: would it be asking your publisher to take too much trouble to send your Botany {"Flora Antarctica," by J.D. Hooker, 1844} to the Athenaeum Club? he might send two or three numbers together. I am really ashamed to think of your having given me such a valuable work; all I can say is that I appreciate your present in two ways—as your gift, and for its great use to my species-work. I am very glad to hear that you mean to attack this subject some day. I wonder whether we shall ever be public combatants; anyhow, I congratulate myself in a most unfair advantage of you, viz., in having extracted more facts and views from you than from any one other person. I daresay your explanation of polymorphism on volcanic islands may be the right one; the reason I am curious about it is, the fact of the birds on the Galapagos being in several instances very fine-run species—that is, in comparing them, not so much one with another, as with their analogues from the continent. I have somehow felt, like you, that an alpine form of a plant is not a true variety; and yet I cannot admit that the simple fact of the cause being assignable ought to prevent its being called a variety; every variation must have some cause, so that the difference would rest on our knowledge in being able or not to assign the cause. Do you consider that a true variety should be produced by causes acting through the parent? But even taking this definition, are you sure that alpine forms are not inherited from one, two, or three generations? Now, would not this be a curious and valuable experiment (16/1. For an account of work of this character, see papers by G. Bonnier in the "Revue Generale," Volume II., 1890; "Ann. Sc. Nat." Volume XX.; "Revue Generale," Volume VII.), viz., to get seeds of some alpine plant, a little more hairy, etc., etc., than its lowland fellow, and raise seedlings at Kew: if this has not been done, could you not get it done? Have you anybody in Scotland from whom you could get the seeds?

I should have written sooner to say that I'm more than happy to contribute £1 1s to the African man (even if it's a small-scale crime), and I'll send you a Post Office order payable to Kew if you could be kind enough to handle it. Thanks for the info about the Antarctic Zoology; I picked up my copies when I was in Town on Thursday. Would it be too much trouble for your publisher to send your Botany {"Flora Antarctica," by J.D. Hooker, 1844} to the Athenaeum Club? He could send two or three copies together. I'm honestly embarrassed that you've given me such a valuable work; I can say I appreciate your gift in two ways—both as your present and for its great use in my species work. I'm really glad to hear that you plan to tackle this subject someday. I wonder if we'll ever be public rivals; anyway, I'm congratulating myself on having an unfair advantage over you by having gathered more facts and insights from you than from anyone else. I suppose your explanation of polymorphism on volcanic islands might be the right one; I'm curious about it because the birds in the Galapagos are, in several cases, really fine run—meaning, comparing them not so much with each other but with their counterparts from the mainland. I somehow feel, like you do, that an alpine form of a plant isn’t a true variety; yet I can't accept that merely assigning a cause should prevent it from being called a variety. Every variation has a cause, so the difference would depend on our ability to identify the cause. Do you think a true variety should be produced by causes acting through the parent? But even with this definition, are you certain that alpine forms aren’t inherited over one, two, or three generations? Now, wouldn’t it be an interesting and valuable experiment (16/1. For an account of work of this character, see papers by G. Bonnier in the "Revue Generale," Volume II., 1890; "Ann. Sc. Nat." Volume XX.; "Revue Generale," Volume VII.), to get seeds from some alpine plant, with a bit more hairiness, etc., than its lowland counterpart, and grow seedlings at Kew? If this hasn’t been done, could you arrange for it to be done? Do you have anyone in Scotland who could supply the seeds?

I have been interested by your remarks on Senecia and Gnaphalium: would it not be worth while (I should be very curious to hear the result) to make a short list of the generally considered variable or polymorphous genera, as Rosa, Salix, Rubus, etc., etc., and reflect whether such genera are generally mundane, and more especially whether they have distinct or identical (or closely allied) species in their different and distant habitats.

I’m intrigued by your comments on Senecia and Gnaphalium. Would it be worthwhile (I’d really like to hear the outcome) to create a brief list of the commonly recognized variable or polymorphic genera, like Rosa, Salix, Rubus, and so on, and consider whether these genera are generally widespread, and specifically whether they have distinct or identical (or closely related) species in their various and distant environments.

Don't forget me, if you ever stumble on cases of the same species being MORE or LESS variable in different countries.

Don't forget me if you ever come across instances of the same species being MORE or LESS variable in different countries.

With respect to the word "sterile" as used for male or polleniferous flowers, it has always offended my ears dreadfully; on the same principle that it would to hear a potent stallion, ram or bull called sterile, because they did not bear, as well as beget, young.

With regards to the word "sterile" when referring to male or pollen-producing flowers, it has always sounded terrible to me; for the same reason that it would to hear a strong stallion, ram, or bull called sterile just because they don't produce offspring themselves, even though they can father them.

With respect to your geological-map suggestion, I wish with all my heart I could follow it; but just reflect on the number of measurements requisite; why, at present it could not be done even in England, even with the assumption of the land having simply risen any exact number of feet. But subsidence in most cases has hopelessly complexed the problem: see what Jordanhill-Smith (16/2. James Smith, of Jordan Hill, author of a paper "On the Geology of Gibraltar" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume II., page 41, 1846).) says of the dance up and down, many times, which Gibraltar has had all within the recent period. Such maps as Lyell (16/3. "Principles of Geology," 1875, Volume I., Plate I, page 254.) has published of sea and land at the beginning of the Tertiary period must be excessively inaccurate: it assumes that every part on which Tertiary beds have not been deposited, must have then been dry land,—a most doubtful assumption.

Regarding your suggestion about the geological map, I truly wish I could pursue it; but just think about how many measurements would be necessary. Honestly, it couldn’t even be done in England right now, assuming the land has simply risen by a specific number of feet. However, subsidence in most cases has made the problem incredibly complex: look at what Jordanhill-Smith (16/2. James Smith, of Jordan Hill, author of a paper "On the Geology of Gibraltar" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume II., page 41, 1846).) says about the many ups and downs that Gibraltar has experienced just in the recent past. The maps published by Lyell (16/3. "Principles of Geology," 1875, Volume I., Plate I, page 254.) showing the sea and land at the beginning of the Tertiary period must be extremely inaccurate: they assume that every area where Tertiary beds haven’t been deposited must have been dry land at that time—which is a highly questionable assumption.

I have been amused by Chambers v. Hooker on the K. Cabbage. I see in the "Explanations" (the spirit of which, though not the facts, ought to shame Sedgwick) that "Vestiges" considers all land-animals and plants to have passed from marine forms; so Chambers is quite in accordance. Did you hear Forbes, when here, giving the rather curious evidence (from a similarity in error) that Chambers must be the author of the "Vestiges": your case strikes me as some confirmation. I have written an unreasonably long and dull letter, so farewell. (16/4. "Explanations: A Sequel to the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" was published in 1845, after the appearance of the fourth edition of the "Vestiges," by way of reply to the criticisms on the original book. The "K. cabbage" referred to at the beginning of the paragraph is Pringlea antiscorbutica," the "Kerguelen Cabbage" described by Sir J.D. Hooker in his "Flora Antarctica." What Chambers wrote on this subject we have not discovered. The mention of Sedgwick is a reference to his severe review of the "Vestiges" in the "Edinburgh Review," 1845, volume 82, page 1. Darwin described it as savouring "of the dogmatism of the pulpit" ("Life and Letters," I., page 344). Mr. Ireland's edition of the "Vestiges" (1844), in which Robert Chambers was first authentically announced as the author, contains (page xxix) an extract from a letter written by Chambers in 1860, in which the following passage occurs, "The April number of the 'Edinburgh Review"' (1860) makes all but a direct amende for the abuse it poured upon my work a number of years ago." This is the well-known review by Owen, to which references occur in the "Life and Letters," II., page 300. The amende to the "Vestiges" is not so full as the author felt it to be; but it was clearly in place in a paper intended to belittle the "Origin"; it also gave the reviewer (page 511) an opportunity for a hit at Sedgwick and his 1845 review.)

I've found Chambers v. Hooker regarding the K. Cabbage to be quite entertaining. I see in the "Explanations" (the essence of which, even if not the details, should embarrass Sedgwick) that "Vestiges" believes all land animals and plants evolved from marine forms; so Chambers is definitely aligned with that idea. Did you hear Forbes, when he was here, providing the rather interesting evidence (from a shared mistake) that Chambers must be the author of the "Vestiges"? Your argument seems to back this up. I've written an unreasonably long and boring letter, so goodbye. (16/4. "Explanations: A Sequel to the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" was published in 1845, following the release of the fourth edition of the "Vestiges," in response to critiques of the original book. The "K. cabbage" mentioned at the beginning is Pringlea antiscorbutica, the "Kerguelen Cabbage" described by Sir J.D. Hooker in his "Flora Antarctica." We haven't found what Chambers wrote about this subject. The reference to Sedgwick points to his harsh review of the "Vestiges" in the "Edinburgh Review," 1845, volume 82, page 1. Darwin described it as showing "the dogmatism of the pulpit" ("Life and Letters," I., page 344). Mr. Ireland's edition of the "Vestiges" (1844), which first confirmed Robert Chambers as the author, contains (page xxix) an excerpt from a letter written by Chambers in 1860, where he mentions, "The April number of the 'Edinburgh Review' (1860) makes almost a direct apology for the criticism it directed at my work years ago." This refers to the well-known review by Owen, mentioned in "Life and Letters," II., page 300. The apology to the "Vestiges" isn't as extensive as the author felt it should have been; however, it was certainly relevant in a paper meant to undermine the "Origin"; it also gave the reviewer (page 511) a chance to take a jab at Sedgwick and his 1845 review.)

LETTER 17. TO L. BLOMEFIELD {JENYNS}. Down. February 14th {1845}.

I have taken my leisure in thanking you for your last letter and discussion, to me very interesting, on the increase of species. Since your letter, I have met with a very similar view in Richardson, who states that the young are driven away by the old into unfavourable districts, and there mostly perish. When one meets with such unexpected statistical returns on the increase and decrease and proportion of deaths and births amongst mankind, and in this well-known country of ours, one ought not to be in the least surprised at one's ignorance, when, where, and how the endless increase of our robins and sparrows is checked.

I've taken my time to thank you for your last letter and our discussion, which I found really interesting, about the increase of species. Since your letter, I've come across a very similar perspective from Richardson, who mentions that the young are pushed away by the adults into less favorable areas, where they often die. When you come across such unexpected statistical data on the rise and fall, as well as the rates of deaths and births among people in our well-known country, you really shouldn't be surprised at how little we know about when, where, and how the endless growth of our robins and sparrows is limited.

Thanks for your hints about terms of "mutation," etc.; I had some suspicions that it was not quite correct, and yet I do not see my way to arrive at any better terms. It will be years before I publish, so that I shall have plenty of time to think of better words. Development would perhaps do, only it is applied to the changes of an individual during its growth. I am, however, very glad of your remark, and will ponder over it.

Thanks for your tips about the term "mutation," and so on; I had a feeling it wasn't quite right, but I can't think of any better terms. It'll be years before I publish, so I have plenty of time to come up with better words. "Development" might work, but it's usually used to describe the changes an individual goes through as it grows. I'm really grateful for your comment and will think more about it.

We are all well, wife and children three, and as flourishing as this horrid, house-confining, tempestuous weather permits.

We’re all doing well, my wife and our three kids, and we're thriving as much as this terrible, confining, stormy weather allows.

LETTER 18. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1845}.

I hope you are getting on well with your lectures, and that you have enjoyed some pleasant walks during the late delightful weather. I write to tell you (as perhaps you might have had fears on the subject) that your books have arrived safely. I am exceedingly obliged to you for them, and will take great care of them; they will take me some time to read carefully.

I hope you're doing well with your classes and that you've enjoyed some nice walks in the lovely weather lately. I'm writing to let you know (in case you were worried about it) that your books have arrived safely. I'm really thankful to you for them, and I’ll take great care of them; it's going to take me a while to read them thoroughly.

I send to-day the corrected MS. of the first number of my "Journal" (18/1. In 1842 he had written to his sister: "Talking of money, I reaped the other day all the profit which I shall ever get from my "Journal" {"Journal of Researches, etc."} which consisted in paying Mr. Colburn 21 pounds 10 shillings for the copies which I presented to different people; 1,337 copies have been sold. This is a comfortable arrangement, is it not?" He was proved wrong in his gloomy prophecy, as the second edition was published by Mr. Murray in 1845.) in the Colonial Library, so that if you chance to know of any gross mistake in the first 214 pages (if you have my "Journal"), I should be obliged to you to tell me.

I’m sending you the corrected manuscript of the first issue of my “Journal” (18/1. In 1842, he wrote to his sister: “Speaking of money, I just collected all the profit I’ll ever get from my 'Journal' {'Journal of Researches, etc.'} which was just paying Mr. Colburn 21 pounds 10 shillings for the copies I gave to various people; 1,337 copies have been sold. This is a nice setup, isn't it?” He was proven wrong in his pessimistic prediction, as the second edition was published by Mr. Murray in 1845.) in the Colonial Library, so if you happen to notice any major mistakes in the first 214 pages (if you have my 'Journal'), I’d really appreciate you letting me know.

Do not answer this for form's sake; for you must be very busy. We have just had the Lyells here, and you ought to have a wife to stop your working too much, as Mrs. Lyell peremptorily stops Lyell.

Don't answer this just for the sake of it; you must be really busy. The Lyells just visited us, and you really need a wife to make you take a break from working so much, just like Mrs. Lyell firmly makes Lyell stop.

LETTER 19. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(19/1. Sir J.D. Hooker's letters to Mr. Darwin seem to fix the date as 1845, while the reference to Forbes' paper indicates 1846.)

(19/1. Sir J.D. Hooker's letters to Mr. Darwin seem to establish the date as 1845, while the mention of Forbes' paper suggests 1846.)

Down {1845-1846}.

I am particularly obliged for your facts about solitary islands having several species of peculiar genera; it knocks on the head some analogies of mine; the point stupidly never occurred to me to ask about. I am amused at your anathemas against variation and co.; whatever you may be pleased to say, you will never be content with simple species, "as they are." I defy you to steel your mind to technicalities, like so many of our brother naturalists. I am much pleased that I thought of sending you Forbes' article. (19/2. E. Forbes' celebrated paper "Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain," Volume I., page 336, 1846. In Lyell's "Principles," 7th Edition, 1847, page 676, he makes a temperate claim of priority, as he had already done in a private letter of October 14th, 1846, to Forbes ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," 1881, Volume II., page 106) both as regards the Sicilian flora and the barrier effect of mountain-chains. See Letter 20 for a note on Forbes.) I confess I cannot make out the evidence of his time-notions in distribution, and I cannot help suspecting that they are rather vague. Lyell preceded Forbes in one class of speculation of this kind: for instance, in his explaining the identity of the Sicily Flora with that of South Italy, by its having been wholly upraised within the recent period; and, so I believe, with mountain-chains separating floras. I do not remember Humboldt's fact about the heath regions. Very curious the case of the broom; I can tell you something analogous on a small scale. My father, when he built his house, sowed many broom-seeds on a wild bank, which did not come up, owing, as it was thought, to much earth having been thrown over them. About thirty-five years afterwards, in cutting a terrace, all this earth was thrown up, and now the bank is one mass of broom. I see we were in some degree talking to cross-purposes; when I said I did {not} much believe in hybridising to any extent, I did not mean at all to exclude crossing. It has long been a hobby of mine to see in how many flowers such crossing is probable; it was, I believe, Knight's view, originally, that every plant must be occasionally crossed. (19/3. See an article on "The Knight-Darwin law" by Francis Darwin in "Nature," October 27th, 1898, page 630.) I find, however, plenty of difficulty in showing even a vague probability of this; especially in the Leguminosae, though their {structure?} is inimitably adapted to favour crossing, I have never yet met with but one instance of a NATURAL MONGREL (nor mule?) in this family.

I really appreciate the information you shared about isolated islands having several species of unique genera; it completely challenges some of my previous thoughts, and for some reason, I never thought to ask about it. I'm amused by your criticisms of variation and similar topics; no matter what you say, you won't be satisfied with simple species "as they are." I challenge you to toughen up and focus on technical details like many of our fellow naturalists do. I'm glad I remembered to send you Forbes' article. (19/2. E. Forbes' famous paper "Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain," Volume I., page 336, 1846. In Lyell's "Principles," 7th Edition, 1847, page 676, he makes a measured claim of priority, as he had already done in a private letter on October 14th, 1846, to Forbes ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," 1881, Volume II., page 106) both regarding the Sicilian flora and the barrier effect of mountain ranges. See Letter 20 for a note on Forbes.) I admit I'm having trouble understanding his ideas about time and distribution, and I can't help but feel they are somewhat unclear. Lyell was ahead of Forbes in a certain type of speculation; for example, explaining the similarity between the Sicily Flora and that of South Italy due to it being completely uplifted in recent times, and I believe this applies to mountain ranges separating different floras too. I don't recall Humboldt's observation about the heath regions. The broom case is quite interesting; I can share a similar experience on a smaller scale. When my father built his house, he planted a lot of broom seeds on a wild bank, but they didn’t grow, likely because too much earth was piled on top of them. About thirty-five years later, when a terrace was being cut, all that earth was removed, and now the bank is completely covered in broom. It seems like we were sort of talking past each other; when I said I didn’t really believe in hybridizing to a great extent, I didn’t mean to rule out crossing at all. It's been a long-time interest of mine to figure out in how many flowers crossing is likely; I believe Knight originally thought that every plant must occasionally cross. (19/3. See an article on "The Knight-Darwin law" by Francis Darwin in "Nature," October 27th, 1898, page 630.) However, I find it quite challenging to show even a vague likelihood of this, especially in the Leguminosae, although their structure is ideally suited to facilitate crossing. I've only come across one instance of a NATURAL MONGREL (or mule?) in this family.

I shall be particularly curious to hear some account of the appearance and origin of the Ayrshire Irish Yew. And now for the main object of my letter: it is to ask whether you would just run your eye over the proof of my Galapagos chapter (19/4. In the second edition of the "Naturalist's Voyage."), where I mention the plants, to see that I have made no blunders, or spelt any of the scientific names wrongly. As I daresay you will so far oblige me, will you let me know a few days before, when you leave Edinburgh and how long you stay at Kinnordy, so that my letter might catch you. I am not surprised at my collection from James Island differing from others, as the damp upland district (where I slept two nights) is six miles from the coast, and no naturalist except myself probably ever ascended to it. Cuming had never even heard of it. Cuming tells me that he was on Charles, James, and Albemarle Islands, and that he cannot remember from my description the Scalesia, but thinks he could if he saw a specimen. I have no idea of the origin of the distribution of the Galapagos shells, about which you ask. I presume (after Forbes' excellent remarks on the facilities by which embryo-shells are transported) that the Pacific shells have been borne thither by currents; but the currents all run the other way.

I'm really interested to learn about the appearance and origin of the Ayrshire Irish Yew. Now, onto the main purpose of my letter: I'm asking if you could take a look at the proof of my Galapagos chapter (19/4 in the second edition of the "Naturalist's Voyage."), where I mention the plants, to make sure I haven't made any mistakes or misspelled any scientific names. If you could do me this favor, please let me know a few days in advance when you leave Edinburgh and how long you'll be at Kinnordy, so my letter can reach you in time. I'm not surprised that my collection from James Island differs from others, considering the damp upland area (where I stayed for two nights) is six miles from the coast, and probably no naturalist except me has ever reached it. Cuming hadn't even heard of it. Cuming mentions he visited Charles, James, and Albemarle Islands but can't recall the Scalesia from my description, though he thinks he could identify it if he saw a specimen. I have no idea about the origin of the Galapagos shells you asked about. I assume (after Forbes' great comments on how embryo shells are carried) that the Pacific shells came there by currents; however, those currents flow in the opposite direction.

(PLATE: EDWARD FORBES 1844? From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.)

(PLATE: EDWARD FORBES 1844? From a photo by Hill & Adamson.)

LETTER 20. EDWARD FORBES TO C. DARWIN.

(20/1. Edward Forbes was at work on his celebrated paper in the "Geological Survey Memoirs" for 1846. We have not seen the letter of Darwin's to which this is a reply, nor, indeed, any of his letters to Forbes. The date of the letter is fixed by Forbes's lecture given at the Royal Institution on February 27th, 1846 (according to L. Horner's privately printed "Memoirs," II., page 94.))

(20/1. Edward Forbes was working on his famous paper in the "Geological Survey Memoirs" for 1846. We haven't seen the letter from Darwin that this is in response to, nor any of his letters to Forbes. The date of the letter is established by Forbes's lecture at the Royal Institution on February 27th, 1846 (according to L. Horner's privately printed "Memoirs," II., page 94.))

Wednesday. 3, Southwark Street, Hyde Park. {1846}.

Dear Darwin

Dear Charles

To answer your very welcome letter, so far from being a waste of time, is a gain, for it obliges me to make myself clear and understood on matters which I have evidently put forward imperfectly and with obscurity. I have devoted the whole of this week to working and writing out the flora question, for I now feel strong enough to give my promised evening lecture on it at the Royal Institution on Friday, and, moreover, wish to get it in printable form for the Reports of our Survey. Therefore at no time can I receive or answer objections with more benefit than now. From the hurry and pressure which unfortunately attend all my movements and doings I rarely have time to spare, in preparing for publication, to do more than give brief and unsatisfactory abstracts, which I fear are often extremely obscure.

To respond to your very welcome letter, far from being a waste of time, is actually beneficial because it forces me to clarify my thoughts on issues I clearly haven't expressed well or clearly. I've dedicated this entire week to working on and writing about the flora topic, as I now feel ready to deliver my promised evening lecture on it at the Royal Institution on Friday, and I also want to get it into a format suitable for the Reports of our Survey. So, there's no better time for me to receive or address objections than now. Due to the rush and pressure that unfortunately accompany all my activities, I rarely have the time to prepare more than brief and unsatisfactory summaries for publication, which I worry are often very unclear.

Now for your objections—which have sprung out of my own obscurities.

Now for your objections—which have come up due to my own unclear points.

I do not argue in a circle about the Irish case, but treat the botanical evidence of connection and the geological as distinct. The former only I urged at Cambridge; the latter I have not yet publicly maintained.

I don't debate in circles about the Irish case, but I consider the botanical evidence of connection and the geological evidence as separate. I only presented the former at Cambridge; I haven't yet publicly argued the latter.

My Cambridge argument (20/2. "On the Distribution of Endemic Plants," by E. Forbes, "Brit. Assoc. Rep." 1845 (Cambridge), page 67.) was this: That no known currents, whether of water or air, or ordinary means of transport (20/3. Darwin's note on transportation (found with Forbes' letter): "Forbes' arguments, from several Spanish plants in Ireland not being transported, not sound, because sea-currents and air ditto and migration of birds in SAME LINES. I have thought not-transportation the greatest difficulty. Now we see how many seeds every plant and tree requires to be regularly propagated in its own country, for we cannot think the great number of seeds superfluous, and therefore how small is the chance of here and there a solitary seedling being preserved in a well-stocked country."), would account for the little group of Asturian plants—few as to species, but playing a conspicuous part in the vegetation—giving a peculiar botanical character to the south of Ireland; that, as I had produced evidence of the other floras of our islands, i.e. the Germanic, the Cretaceous, and the Devonian (these terms used topographically, not geologically) having been acquired by migration over continuous land (the glacial or alpine flora I except for the present—as ice-carriage might have played a great part in its introduction)—I considered it most probable, and maintained, that the introduction of that Irish flora was also effected by the same means. I held also that the character of this flora was more southern and more ancient than that of any of the others, and that its fragmentary and limited state was probably due to the plants composing it having (from their comparative hardiness—heaths, saxifrages, etc.) survived the destroying influence of the glacial epoch.

My argument in Cambridge (20/2. "On the Distribution of Endemic Plants," by E. Forbes, "Brit. Assoc. Rep." 1845 (Cambridge), page 67.) was this: That no known currents, whether of water or air, or any typical means of transport (20/3. Darwin's note on transportation (found with Forbes' letter): "Forbes' arguments, based on several Spanish plants not being transported to Ireland, aren’t sound because of sea currents, air currents, and bird migration along the same routes. I believe non-transportation is the biggest challenge. Now we see how many seeds every plant and tree needs to be regularly propagated in its own country, as we can't consider the large number of seeds excessive. Therefore, the chance of just one solitary seedling surviving in a well-stocked country is very small."), would explain the small group of Asturian plants—few in species, but significant in the vegetation—giving a unique botanical character to the south of Ireland; that, since I had provided evidence of the other floras of our islands, like the Germanic, the Cretaceous, and the Devonian (these terms used geographically, not geologically), having been acquired through migration over continuous land (I'm excluding the glacial or alpine flora for now, as ice transport may have played a major role in its introduction)—I deemed it most likely and argued that the introduction of the Irish flora occurred in the same way. I also believed that the character of this flora was more southern and more ancient than that of any of the others, and that its fragmented and limited state was likely due to the plants making it up having survived the destructive effects of the glacial period due to their relative hardiness—heaths, saxifrages, etc.

My geological argument now is as follows: half the Mediterranean islands, or more, are partly—in some cases (as Malta) wholly—composed of the upheaved bed of the Miocene sea; so is a great part of the south of France from Bordeaux to Montpellier; so is the west of Portugal; and we find the corresponding beds with the same fossils (Pecten latissimus, etc.) in the Azores. So general an upheaval seems to me to indicate the former existence of a great post-Miocene land {in} the region of what is usually called the Mediterranean flora. (Everywhere these Miocene islands, etc., bear a flora of true type.) If this land existed, it did not extend to America, for the fossils of the Miocene of America are representative and not identical. Where, then, was the edge or coast-line of it, Atlantic-wards? Look at the form and constancy of the great fucus-bank, and consider that it is a Sargassum bank, and that the Sargassum there is in an abnormal condition, and that the species of this genus of fuci are essentially ground-growers, and then see the probability of this bank having originated on a line of ancient coast.

My geological argument is as follows: about half or more of the Mediterranean islands are partly— and in some cases (like Malta) completely—made up of the uplifted bed of the Miocene sea; the same goes for a large section of southern France from Bordeaux to Montpellier; and also the west of Portugal; we see the same beds with the same fossils (Pecten latissimus, etc.) in the Azores. Such a widespread uplift suggests to me that there used to be a significant post-Miocene land in the area typically referred to as the Mediterranean flora. (Everywhere these Miocene islands, etc., carry a true type of flora.) If this land was real, it didn't reach America, because the Miocene fossils in America are representative, not identical. So where was its edge or coastline towards the Atlantic? Consider the shape and consistency of the large fucus bank, keep in mind that it is a Sargassum bank, and that the Sargassum there is in an unusual condition, and remember that the species within this genus of fucus are primarily ground-growers. This makes it likely that this bank originated along a line of ancient coast.

Now, having thus argued independently, first on my flora and second on the geological evidences of land in the quarter required, I put the two together to bear up my Irish case.

Now, having argued separately, first about my plant life and second about the geological evidence of land in the area needed, I combine the two to support my case for Ireland.

I cannot admit the Sargassum case to be parallel with that of Confervae or Oscillatoria.

I can’t agree that the Sargassum case is the same as that of Confervae or Oscillatoria.

I think I have evidence from the fossils of the boulder formations in Ireland that if such Miocene land existed it must have been broken up or partially broken up at the epoch of the glacial or boulder period.

I believe I have evidence from the fossils in the boulder formations in Ireland that if this Miocene land existed, it would have been broken apart or partially broken apart during the glacial or boulder period.

All objections thankfully received.

All objections have been received.

Ever most sincerely,

Most sincerely,

EDWARD FORBES.

LETTER 21. TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down. {1846}.

I am much obliged for your note and kind intended present of your volume. (21/1. No doubt the late Mr. Blomefield's "Observations in Natural History." See "Life and Letters," II., page 31.) I feel sure I shall like it, for all discussions and observations on what the world would call trifling points in Natural History always appear to me very interesting. In such foreign periodicals as I have seen, there are no such papers as White, or Waterton, or some few other naturalists in Loudon's and Charlesworth's Journal, would have written; and a great loss it has always appeared to me. I should have much liked to have met you in London, but I cannot leave home, as my wife is recovering from a rather sharp fever attack, and I am myself slaving to finish my S. American Geology (21/2. "Geological Observations in South America" (London), 1846.), of which, thanks to all Plutonic powers, two-thirds are through the press, and then I shall feel a comparatively free man. Have you any thoughts of Southampton? (21/3. The British Association met at Southampton in 1846.) I have some vague idea of going there, and should much enjoy meeting you.

I really appreciate your note and the thoughtful gift of your book. (21/1. No doubt the late Mr. Blomefield's "Observations in Natural History." See "Life and Letters," II., page 31.) I’m sure I’ll enjoy it, as I find discussions and insights on what the world might consider trivial points in Natural History to be very engaging. In the foreign journals I've seen, there aren’t any articles like those written by White, Waterton, or a few other naturalists featured in Loudon’s and Charlesworth’s Journal, which I’ve always thought was a significant loss. I would have loved to meet you in London, but I can’t leave home right now because my wife is recovering from a pretty intense fever, and I’m busy trying to finish my South American Geology work. (21/2. "Geological Observations in South America" (London), 1846.) Thankfully, two-thirds are already in production, and then I'll feel relatively free. Are you considering Southampton? (21/3. The British Association met at Southampton in 1846.) I have a vague idea of going there, and I would really enjoy meeting you.

LETTER 22. TO J.D. HOOKER. Shrewsbury {end of February 1846}.

I came here on account of my father's health, which has been sadly failing of late, but to my great joy he has got surprisingly better...I had not heard of your botanical appointment (22/1. Sir Joseph was appointed Botanist to the Geological Survey in 1846.), and am very glad of it, more especially as it will make you travel and give you change of work and relaxation. Will you some time have to examine the Chalk and its junction with London Clay and Greensand? If so our house would be a good central place, and my horse would be at your disposal. Could you not spin a long week out of this examination? it would in truth delight us, and you could bring your papers (like Lyell) and work at odd times. Forbes has been writing to me about his subsidence doctrines; I wish I had heard his full details, but I have expressed to him in my ignorance my objections, which rest merely on its too great hypothetical basis; I shall be curious, when I meet him, to hear what he says. He is also speculating on the gulf-weed. I confess I cannot appreciate his reasoning about his Miocene continent, but I daresay it is from want of knowledge.

I came here because my father's health has been sadly declining lately, but I'm really happy to say he's surprisingly doing better now. I hadn’t heard about your botanical appointment (22/1. Sir Joseph was appointed Botanist to the Geological Survey in 1846.), and I’m really glad to hear that, especially since it will let you travel and give you a change of scenery and some relaxation. Will you need to examine the Chalk and its connections with London Clay and Greensand sometime? If so, our house would be a great central spot, and my horse would be available for you. Could you stretch out a long week for this examination? It would truly delight us, and you could bring your papers (like Lyell) and work on them during your free time. Forbes has been writing to me about his subsidence theories; I wish I had the full details, but I’ve shared my objections, which are really based on it being too theoretical. I’m curious to hear what he says when I see him. He’s also thinking about gulf-weed. I must admit I don’t really get his reasoning about the Miocene continent, but I guess that’s just due to my lack of knowledge.

You allude to the Sicily flora not being peculiar, and this being caused by its recent elevation (well established) in the main part: you will find Lyell has put forward this very clearly and well. The Apennines (which I was somewhere lately reading about) seems a very curious case.

You mention that the flora of Sicily isn’t unique, and this is due to its recent elevation (which is well established) in the main area: you'll find that Lyell has explained this very clearly and well. The Apennines (which I was reading about recently) seem like a very interesting case.

I think Forbes ought to allude a little to Lyell's (22/2. See Letter 19.) work on nearly the same subject as his speculations; not that I mean that Forbes wishes to take the smallest credit from him or any man alive; no man, as far as I see, likes so much to give credit to others, or more soars above the petty craving for self-celebrity.

I think Forbes should reference Lyell's work (22/2. See Letter 19.) on almost the same topic as his theories; not that I believe Forbes wants to take any credit away from him or anyone else alive; no one, as far as I can tell, enjoys giving credit to others more or rises above the trivial desire for self-promotion.

If you come to any more conclusions about polymorphism, I should be very glad to hear the result: it is delightful to have many points fermenting in one's brain, and your letters and conclusions always give one plenty of this same fermentation. I wish I could even make any return for all your facts, views, and suggestions.

If you come to any more insights about polymorphism, I’d love to hear what you find out: it’s exciting to have multiple ideas brewing in your mind, and your letters and thoughts always provide a lot of this same stimulation. I wish I could even reciprocate with all your information, perspectives, and suggestions.

LETTER 23. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(23/1. The following extract gives the germ of what developed into an interesting discussion in the "Origin" (Edition I., page 147). Darwin wrote, "I suspect also that some cases of compensation which have been advanced and likewise some other facts, may be merged under a more general principle: namely, that natural selection is continually trying to economise in every part of the organism." He speaks of the general belief of botanists in compensation, but does not quote any instances.)

(23/1. The following extract gives the basis of what led to an interesting discussion in the "Origin" (Edition I., page 147). Darwin wrote, "I also suspect that some examples of compensation that have been put forward, as well as some other facts, might fit under a more general principle: that natural selection is always trying to save resources in every part of the organism." He mentions the general belief among botanists in compensation, but doesn't provide any specific examples.)

{September 1846}.

Have you ever thought of G. St. Hilaire's "loi de balancement" (23/2. According to Darwin ("Variation of Animals and Plants," 2nd edition, II., page 335) the law of balancement was propounded by Goethe and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) nearly at the same time, but he gives no reference to the works of these authors. It appears, however, from his son Isidore's "Vie, Travaux etc., d'Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire," Paris 1847, page 214, that the law was given in his "Philosophie Anatomique," of which the first part was published in 1818. Darwin (ibid.) gives some instances of the law holding good in plants.), as applied to plants? I am well aware that some zoologists quite reject it, but it certainly appears to me that it often holds good with animals. You are no doubt aware of the kind of facts I refer to, such as great development of canines in the carnivora apparently causing a diminution—a compensation or balancement—in the small size of premolars, etc. I have incidentally noticed some analogous remarks on plants, but have never seen it discussed by botanists. Can you think of cases in any one species in genus, or genus in family, with certain parts extra developed, and some adjoining parts reduced? In varieties of the same species double flowers and large fruits seem something of this—want of pollen and of seeds balancing with the increased number of petals and development of fruit. I hope we shall see you here this autumn.

Have you ever considered G. St. Hilaire's "law of balancing" (23/2)? According to Darwin ("Variation of Animals and Plants," 2nd edition, II., page 335), the law of balancing was proposed by Goethe and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) around the same time, but he doesn’t reference the works of these authors. However, it seems from his son Isidore's "Life, Works etc., of Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire," Paris 1847, page 214, that the law was introduced in his "Philosophie Anatomique," the first part of which was published in 1818. Darwin (ibid.) gives some examples of the law applying to plants. As for its application to plants, I know that some zoologists completely dismiss it, but it certainly seems to me that it often applies to animals. I'm sure you're aware of the sorts of facts I'm talking about, like the significant development of canines in carnivores seemingly leading to a reduction— a compensation or balancing—in the size of premolars, etc. I have also noticed some similar observations in plants, but I haven’t seen it discussed by botanists. Can you think of examples in any species within a genus, or a genus within a family, where certain parts are overdeveloped and some neighboring parts are reduced? In varieties of the same species, double flowers and large fruits seem to exhibit something of this—lack of pollen and seeds balancing with the increased number of petals and fruit development. I hope we can see you here this autumn.

(24/1. In this year (1847) Darwin wrote a short review of Waterhouse's "Natural History of the Mammalia," of which the first volume had appeared. It was published in "The Annals and Magazine of Natural History," Volume XIX., page 53. The following sentence is the only one which shows even a trace of evolution: "whether we view classification as a mere contrivance to convey much information in a single word, or as something more than a memoria technica, and as connected with the laws of creation, we cannot doubt that where such important differences in the generative and cerebral systems, as distinguish the Marsupiata from the Placentata, run through two series of animals, they ought to be arranged under heads of equal value."

(24/1. In this year (1847), Darwin wrote a short review of Waterhouse's "Natural History of the Mammals," of which the first volume had been published. It appeared in "The Annals and Magazine of Natural History," Volume XIX, page 53. The following sentence is the only one that shows even a hint of evolution: "Whether we see classification as just a way to convey a lot of information in a single term, or as something more significant than a memory aid and related to the laws of creation, we cannot deny that when there are such major differences in the reproductive and brain systems, like those that separate the Marsupiata from the Placentata, running through two groups of animals, they should be organized under categories of equal importance."

A characteristic remark occurs in reference to Geographical Distribution, "that noble subject of which we as yet but dimly see the full bearing."

A notable comment is made about Geographical Distribution, "that important topic of which we still only vaguely understand the full implications."

The following letter seems to be of sufficient interest to be published in spite of the obscurities caused by the want of date. It seems to have been written after 1847, in which year a dispute involving Dr. King and several "arctic gentlemen" was carried on in the "Athenaeum." Mr. Darwin speaks of "Natural History Instructions for the present expedition." This may possibly refer to the "Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry" (1849), for it is clear, from the prefatory memorandum of the Lords of the Admiralty, that they believed the manual would be of use in the forthcoming expeditions in search of Sir John Franklin.)

The following letter seems interesting enough to publish despite the lack of a date. It appears to have been written after 1847, the year a dispute involving Dr. King and several "arctic gentlemen" was discussed in the "Athenaeum." Mr. Darwin mentions "Natural History Instructions for the current expedition." This might refer to the "Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry" (1849), as it’s clear from the introductory note from the Lords of the Admiralty that they thought the manual would be helpful for the upcoming expeditions to find Sir John Franklin.

LETTER 24. TO E. CRESY.

(24/2. Mr. Cresy was, we believe, an architect: his friendship with Mr. Darwin dates from the settlement at Down.)

(24/2. Mr. Cresy was, we think, an architect: his friendship with Mr. Darwin goes back to the time they settled in Down.)

Down {after 1847}.

Although I have never particularly attended to the points in dispute between Dr. (Richard) King and the other Arctic gentlemen, yet I have carefully read all the articles in the "Athenaeum," and took from them much the same impression as you convey in your letter, for which I thank you. I believe that old sinner, Sir J. Barrow (24/3. Sir John Barrow, (1764-1848): Secretary to the Admiralty. has been at the bottom of all the money wasted over the naval expeditions. So strongly have I felt on this subject, that, when I was appointed on a committee for Nat. Hist. instructions for the present expedition, had I been able to attend I had resolved to express my opinion on the little advantage, comparatively to the expense, gained by them. There have been, I believe, from the beginning eighteen expeditions; this strikes me as monstrous, considering how little is known, for instance, on the interior of Australia. The country has paid dear for Sir John's hobbyhorse. I have very little doubt that Dr. King is quite right in the advantage of land expeditions as far as geography is concerned; and that is now the chief object. (24/4. This sentence would imply that Darwin thought it hopeless to rescue Sir J. Franklin's expedition. If so, the letter must be, at least, as late as 1850. If the eighteen expeditions mentioned above are "search expeditions," it would also bring the date of the letter to 1850.)

Although I haven't paid much attention to the disputes between Dr. (Richard) King and the other Arctic gentlemen, I've carefully read all the articles in the "Athenaeum" and took away a similar impression to what you mentioned in your letter, for which I thank you. I believe that the old troublemaker, Sir J. Barrow, has been responsible for all the money wasted on the naval expeditions. I feel so strongly about this that when I was appointed to a committee for National History instructions for the current expedition, I had planned to express my opinion on the little benefit gained compared to the expense involved, had I been able to attend. I believe there have been eighteen expeditions from the start; this seems excessive to me, especially considering how little is known about the interior of Australia, for instance. The country has paid dearly for Sir John's pet project. I have little doubt that Dr. King is correct about the advantages of land expeditions in terms of geography, which is now the primary goal.

LETTER 25. TO RICHARD OWEN. Down {March 26th, 1848}.

My dear Owen

Dear Owen

I do not know whether your MS. instructions are sent in; but even if they are not sent in, I daresay what I am going to write will be absolutely superfluous (25/1. The results of Mr. Darwin's experience given in the above letter were embodied by Prof. Owen in the section "On the Use of the Microscope on Board Ship," forming part of the article "Zoology" in the "Manual of Scientific Enquiry, Prepared for the Use of Her Majesty's Navy" (London, 1849).), but I have derived such infinitely great advantage from my new simple microscope, in comparison with the one which I used on board the "Beagle," and which was recommended to me by R. Brown ("Life and Letters," I., page 145.), that I cannot forego the mere chance of advantage of urging this on you. The leading point of difference consists simply in having the stage for saucers very large and fixed. Mine will hold a saucer three inches in inside diameter. I have never seen such a microscope as mine, though Chevalier's (from whose plan many points of mine are taken), of Paris, approaches it pretty closely. I fully appreciate the utter ABSURDITY of my giving you advice about means of dissecting; but I have appreciated myself the enormous disadvantage of having worked with a bad instrument, though thought a few years since the best. Please to observe that without you call especial attention to this point, those ignorant of Natural History will be sure to get one of the fiddling instruments sold in shops. If you thought fit, I would point out the differences, which, from my experience, make a useful microscope for the kind of dissection of the invertebrates which a person would be likely to attempt on board a vessel. But pray again believe that I feel the absurdity of this letter, and I write merely from the chance of yourself, possessing great skill and having worked with good instruments, {not being} possibly fully aware what an astonishing difference the kind of microscope makes for those who have not been trained in skill for dissection under water. When next I come to town (I was prevented last time by illness) I must call on you, and report, for my own satisfaction, a really (I think) curious point I have made out in my beloved barnacles. You cannot tell how much I enjoyed my talk with you here.

I don’t know if your manuscript instructions have been sent in, but even if they haven’t, I’m sure what I’m about to say will be completely unnecessary (25/1. The results of Mr. Darwin's experience mentioned in the above letter were included by Prof. Owen in the section "On the Use of the Microscope on Board Ship," which is part of the article "Zoology" in the "Manual of Scientific Enquiry, Prepared for the Use of Her Majesty's Navy" (London, 1849).), but I’ve gained so much from my new simple microscope compared to the one I used on the "Beagle," which was recommended to me by R. Brown ("Life and Letters," I., page 145.), that I can’t pass up the opportunity to suggest this to you. The main difference is just that my microscope has a very large, fixed stage for holding saucers. Mine can hold a saucer with a three-inch inside diameter. I’ve never seen another microscope like mine, although Chevalier's (whose design influenced many aspects of mine) from Paris comes pretty close. I realize it’s completely ridiculous for me to give you advice about dissection tools, but I’ve recognized the huge disadvantage of working with a poor instrument, which was considered the best just a few years ago. Please note that unless you highlight this point, people who aren’t familiar with Natural History will likely end up buying one of those flimsy instruments sold in stores. If you think it’s appropriate, I’d be happy to outline the differences that, based on my experience, make a good microscope useful for the type of dissection of invertebrates one would likely attempt on a ship. But please believe me when I say I feel the silliness of this letter, and I’m writing simply because you might, with your great skill and experience with good instruments, not fully appreciate how amazing the type of microscope can be for those who haven’t been trained in dissection techniques underwater. The next time I come to town (I couldn’t make it last time due to illness), I’ll have to visit you and share, for my own satisfaction, a really interesting point I’ve discovered about my beloved barnacles. You can’t imagine how much I enjoyed our conversation here.

Ever, my dear Owen, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.

P.S.—If I do not hear, I shall understand that my letter is superfluous. Smith and Beck were so pleased with the simple microscope they made for me, that they have made another as a model. If you are consulted by any young naturalists, do recommend them to look at this. I really feel quite a personal gratitude to this form of microscope, and quite a hatred to my old one.

P.S.—If I don't hear back, I'll take it as a sign that my letter wasn't necessary. Smith and Beck were really happy with the simple microscope they made for me, so they created another one as a model. If you get asked by any young naturalists, please suggest they check this out. I honestly feel a strong sense of gratitude towards this new microscope, and quite the opposite feelings for my old one.

LETTER 26. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down {April 1st, 1848.}

Thank you for your note and giving me a chance of seeing you in town; but it was out of my power to take advantage of it, for I had previously arranged to go up to London on Monday. I should have much enjoyed seeing you. Thanks also for your address (26/1. An introductory lecture delivered in March 1848 at the first meeting of a Society "for giving instructions to the working classes in Ipswich in various branches of science, and more especially in natural history" ("Memoir of the Rev. J.S. Henslow," by Leonard Jenyns, page 150.), which I like very much. The anecdote about Whewell and the tides I had utterly forgotten; I believe it is near enough to the truth. I rather demur to one sentence of yours—viz., "However delightful any scientific pursuit may be, yet, if it should be wholly unapplied, it is of no more use than building castles in the air." Would not your hearers infer from this that the practical use of each scientific discovery ought to be immediate and obvious to make it worthy of admiration? What a beautiful instance chloroform is of a discovery made from purely scientific researches, afterwards coming almost by chance into practical use! For myself I would, however, take higher ground, for I believe there exists, and I feel within me, an instinct for truth, or knowledge or discovery, of something of the same nature as the instinct of virtue, and that our having such an instinct is reason enough for scientific researches without any practical results ever ensuing from them. You will wonder what makes me run on so, but I have been working very hard for the last eighteen months on the anatomy, etc., of the Cirripedia (on which I shall publish a monograph), and some of my friends laugh at me, and I fear the study of the Cirripedia will ever remain "wholly unapplied," and yet I feel that such study is better than castle-building.

Thank you for your note and for the opportunity to see you in town, but I couldn't take advantage of it since I had already planned to go to London on Monday. I would have really enjoyed seeing you. I also appreciate your address (26/1. An introductory lecture delivered in March 1848 at the first meeting of a Society "for giving instructions to the working classes in Ipswich in various branches of science, and more especially in natural history" ("Memoir of the Rev. J.S. Henslow," by Leonard Jenyns, page 150.), which I like very much. I had completely forgotten the anecdote about Whewell and the tides; I believe it is close enough to the truth. I do take issue with one of your sentences—specifically, "However delightful any scientific pursuit may be, yet, if it should be wholly unapplied, it is of no more use than building castles in the air." Would your audience not infer from this that the practical use of each scientific discovery needs to be immediate and obvious to be worthy of admiration? A beautiful example is chloroform, which was discovered through purely scientific research and later found practical use almost by chance! Personally, I would adopt a higher perspective, as I believe there’s an instinct for truth, knowledge, or discovery—similar to an instinct for virtue—and having such an instinct alone justifies scientific research, even if it never leads to practical results. You might wonder why I'm rambling, but I've been working very hard for the last eighteen months on the anatomy, etc., of the Cirripedia (on which I plan to publish a monograph), and some of my friends laugh at me. I fear that the study of the Cirripedia will always remain "wholly unapplied," yet I believe that this study is worth more than castle-building.

LETTER 27. TO J.D. HOOKER, at Dr. Falconer's, Botanic Garden, Calcutta. Down, May 10th, 1848.

I was indeed delighted to see your handwriting; but I felt almost sorry when I beheld how long a letter you had written. I know that you are indomitable in work, but remember how precious your time is, and do not waste it on your friends, however much pleasure you may give them. Such a letter would have cost me half-a-day's work. How capitally you seem going on! I do envy you the sight of all the glorious vegetation. I am much pleased and surprised that you have been able to observe so much in the animal world. No doubt you keep a journal, and an excellent one it will be, I am sure, when published. All these animal facts will tell capitally in it. I can quite comprehend the difficulty you mention about not knowing what is known zoologically in India; but facts observed, as you will observe them, are none the worse for reiterating. Did you see Mr. Blyth in Calcutta? He would be a capital man to tell you what is known about Indian Zoology, at least in the Vertebrata. He is a very clever, odd, wild fellow, who will never do what he could do, from not sticking to any one subject. By the way, if you should see him at any time, try not to forget to remember me very kindly to him; I liked all I saw of him. Your letter was the very one to charm me, with all its facts for my Species-book, and truly obliged I am for so kind a remembrance of me. Do not forget to make enquiries about the origin, even if only traditionally known, of any varieties of domestic quadrupeds, birds, silkworms, etc. Are there domestic bees? if so hives ought to be brought home. Of all the facts you mention, that of the wild {illegible}, when breeding with the domestic, producing offspring somewhat sterile, is the most surprising: surely they must be different species. Most zoologists would absolutely disbelieve such a statement, and consider the result as a proof that they were distinct species. I do not go so far as that, but the case seems highly improbable. Blyth has studied the Indian Ruminantia. I have been much struck about what you say of lowland plants ascending mountains, but the alpine not descending. How I do hope you will get up some mountains in Borneo; how curious the result will be! By the way, I never heard from you what affinity the Maldive flora has, which is cruel, as you tempted me by making me guess. I sometimes groan over your Indian journey, when I think over all your locked up riches. When shall I see a memoir on Insular floras, and on the Pacific? What a grand subject Alpine floras of the world (27/1. Mr. William Botting Hemsley, F.R.S., of the Royal Gardens, Kew, is now engaged on a monograph of the high-level Alpine plants of the world.) would be, as far as known; and then you have never given a coup d'oeil on the similarity and dissimilarity of Arctic and Antarctic floras. Well, thank heavens, when you do come back you will be nolens volens a fixture. I am particularly glad you have been at the Coal; I have often since you went gone on maundering on the subject, and I shall never rest easy in Down churchyard without the problem be solved by some one before I die. Talking of dying makes me tell you that my confounded stomach is much the same; indeed, of late has been rather worse, but for the last year, I think, I have been able to do more work. I have done nothing besides the barnacles, except, indeed, a little theoretical paper on erratic boulders (27/2. "On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a Lower to a Higher Level" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume IV., pages 315-23. 1848). In this paper Darwin favours the view that the transport of boulders was effected by coast-ice. An earlier paper entitled "Notes on the Effects produced by the ancient Glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the Boulders transported by floating Ice" ("Phil. Mag." 1842, page 352) is spoken of by Sir Archibald Geikie as standing "almost at the top of the long list of English contributions to the history of the Ice Age" ("Charles Darwin," "Nature" Series, page 23).), and Scientific Geological Instructions for the Admiralty Volume (27/3. "A manual of Scientific Enquiry, prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy, and adapted for Travellers in General." Edited by Sir John F.W. Herschel, Bart. Section VI.—Geology—by Charles Darwin. London, 1849. See "Life and Letters," pages 328-9.), which cost me some trouble. This work, which is edited by Sir J. Herschel, is a very good job, inasmuch as the captains of men-of-war will now see that the Admiralty cares for science, and so will favour naturalists on board. As for a man who is not scientific by nature, I do not believe instructions will do him any good; and if he be scientific and good for anything the instructions will be superfluous. I do not know who does the Botany; Owen does the Zoology, and I have sent him an account of my new simple microscope, which I consider perfect, even better than yours by Chevalier. N.B. I have got a 1/8 inch object-glass, and it is grand. I have been getting on well with my beloved Cirripedia, and get more skilful in dissection. I have worked out the nervous system pretty well in several genera, and made out their ears and nostrils (27/4. For the olfactory sacs see Darwin's "Monograph of the Cirripedia," 1851, page 52.), which were quite unknown. I have lately got a bisexual cirripede, the male being microscopically small and parasitic within the sack of the female. I tell you this to boast of my species theory, for the nearest closely allied genus to it is, as usual, hermaphrodite, but I had observed some minute parasites adhering to it, and these parasites I now can show are supplemental males, the male organs in the hermaphrodite being unusually small, though perfect and containing zoosperms: so we have almost a polygamous animal, simple females alone being wanting. I never should have made this out, had not my species theory convinced me, that an hermaphrodite species must pass into a bisexual species by insensibly small stages; and here we have it, for the male organs in the hermaphrodite are beginning to fail, and independent males ready formed. But I can hardly explain what I mean, and you will perhaps wish my barnacles and species theory al Diavolo together. But I don't care what you say, my species theory is all gospel. We have had only one party here: viz., of the Lyells, Forbes, Owen, and Ramsay, and we both missed you and Falconer very much...I know more of your history than you will suppose, for Miss Henslow most good-naturedly sent me a packet of your letters, and she wrote me so nice a little note that it made me quite proud. I have not heard of anything in the scientific line which would interest you. Sir H. De la Beche (27/5. The Presidential Address delivered by De la Beche before the Geological Society in 1848 ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume IV., "Proceedings," page xxi, 1848).) gave a very long and rather dull address; the most interesting part was from Sir J. Ross. Mr. Beete Jukes figured in it very prominently: it really is a very nice quality in Sir Henry, the manner in which he pushes forward his subordinates. Jukes has since read what was considered a very valuable paper. The man, not content with moustaches, now sports an entire beard, and I am sure thinks himself like Jupiter tonans. There was a short time since a not very creditable discussion at a meeting of the Royal Society, where Owen fell foul of Mantell with fury and contempt about belemnites. What wretched doings come from the order of fame; the love of truth alone would never make one man attack another bitterly. My paper is full, so I must wish you with all my heart farewell. Heaven grant that your health may keep good.

I was really happy to see your handwriting, but I almost felt bad when I saw how long your letter was. I know you work tirelessly, but please remember how valuable your time is, and don’t waste it on your friends, no matter how much joy it might bring them. A letter like that would cost me half a day’s work. You seem to be doing amazingly well! I really envy you for experiencing all the beautiful plant life. I'm also glad and surprised that you’ve had the chance to observe so much in the animal kingdom. I’m sure you keep a journal, and it will be excellent when published. All those animal facts will be great for it. I understand the challenge you mentioned about not knowing what’s already known in Indian zoology; however, the facts you gather will still be valuable. Did you meet Mr. Blyth in Calcutta? He would be a great resource for information on Indian Zoology, at least regarding the Vertebrates. He's a very clever, quirky guy who never focuses on one subject. By the way, if you see him, please remember me kindly; I liked everything I saw of him. Your letter was just the one to delight me, filled with facts for my Species-book, and I truly appreciate your kind remembrance of me. Don’t forget to ask about the origins, even if only traditionally known, of various domestic animals, birds, silkworms, etc. Do we have domestic bees? If so, we should bring some hives back. Of all the facts you mentioned, the one about wild {illegible} producing somewhat sterile offspring when bred with domestic ones is the most surprising: they must be different species. Most zoologists would completely disbelieve such a claim and consider it proof that they are distinct species. I don’t quite go that far, but it does seem highly unlikely. Blyth has studied Indian Ruminantia. I’m very intrigued by what you said about lowland plants climbing mountains but alpine plants not coming down. I really hope you manage to climb some mountains in Borneo; I’m curious about what you’ll find! By the way, you never told me how the Maldive flora is connected, which is mean since you got me guessing. I sometimes think about your Indian journey and all your hidden treasures. When will I see a memoir about insular floras and the Pacific? What a fantastic subject the alpine floras of the world would be, at least as far as we know; and you have never provided an overview of the similarities and differences between Arctic and Antarctic floras. Well, thank goodness when you come back, you’ll be a permanent fixture, whether you like it or not. I’m especially glad you went to the Coal; since you left, I often find myself musing about it, and I won’t rest easy in Down churchyard until someone solves the problem before I die. Speaking of dying, I should tell you that my annoying stomach is about the same; in fact, it has been a bit worse lately, but I think I’ve managed to do more work over the past year. I haven’t done anything besides the barnacles, aside from a little theoretical paper on erratic boulders, which cost me some effort. This work, edited by Sir J. Herschel, is quite a good piece, as it shows the Admiralty cares about science, which should benefit naturalists on board. For a person who isn’t naturally scientific, I doubt instructions would help him; and if he’s scientific and able, the instructions would be unnecessary. I’m not sure who handles the Botany; Owen does the Zoology, and I’ve sent him details about my new simple microscope, which I think is perfect, even better than yours by Chevalier. N.B. I have a 1/8 inch object glass, and it's fantastic. I've been progressing well with my beloved Cirripedia and becoming more skilled at dissection. I’ve worked out the nervous system quite thoroughly in several genera and figured out their ears and nostrils, which were previously unknown. I recently discovered a bisexual cirripede, with the male being microscopically tiny and living parasitically within the female's sack. I mention this to boast about my species theory, as the closest related genus to it is, as usual, hermaphrodite, but I had noticed some tiny parasites attached to it, which I can now show are additional males, with the male organs in the hermaphrodite being unusually small but still perfect and containing zoosperms: so we have almost a polygamous animal, with only simple females missing. I never would have figured this out without my species theory convincing me that a hermaphrodite species must transition into a bisexual species through tiniest stages; and that's exactly what we have here, as the male organs in the hermaphrodite are beginning to degenerate while the independent males are fully formed. But I can hardly explain what I mean, and you might wish for my barnacles and species theory to just go away. But I stand by my species theory; it’s absolute truth. We’ve only had one gathering here: with the Lyells, Forbes, Owen, and Ramsay, and we both missed you and Falconer very much...I know more about your situation than you might think, because Miss Henslow generously sent me a bundle of your letters, and she wrote such a sweet little note that it made me feel quite proud. I haven’t heard of anything scientific that would interest you. Sir H. De la Beche gave a very long and rather dull talk; the most interesting part was from Sir J. Ross. Mr. Beete Jukes stood out in it quite a bit; it’s really nice how Sir Henry promotes his subordinates. Jukes has since presented what was deemed a very valuable paper. Recently, he decided to grow a full beard on top of his moustaches, and I’m sure he thinks he looks like Jupiter tonans. Not long ago, there was a rather disreputable debate at a Royal Society meeting, where Owen lashed out at Mantell with rage about belemnites. What miserable things arise from the pursuit of fame; just the love of truth wouldn’t fuel such bitter attacks. My paper is full, so I must wish you farewell with all my heart. I deeply hope for your good health.

LETTER 28. TO J.S. HENSLOW. The Lodge, Malvern, May 6th, 1849.

Your kind note has been forwarded to me here. You will be surprised to hear that we all—children, servants, and all—have been here for nearly two months. All last autumn and winter my health grew worse and worse: incessant sickness, tremulous hands, and swimming head. I thought I was going the way of all flesh. Having heard of much success in some cases from the cold-water cure, I determined to give up all attempts to do anything and come here and put myself under Dr. Gully. It has answered to a considerable extent: my sickness much checked and considerable strength gained. Dr. G., moreover (and I hear he rarely speaks confidently), tells me he has little doubt but that he can cure me in the course of time—time, however, it will take. I have experienced enough to feel sure that the cold-water cure is a great and powerful agent and upsetter of all constitutional habits. Talking of habits, the cruel wretch has made me leave off snuff—that chief solace of life. We thank you most sincerely for your prompt and early invitation to Hitcham for the British Association for 1850 (28/1. The invitation was probably not for 1850, but for 1851, when the Association met at Ipswich.): if I am made well and strong, most gladly will I accept it; but as I have been hitherto, a drive every day of half a dozen miles would be more than I could stand with attending any of the sections. I intend going to Birmingham (28/2. The Association met at Birmingham in 1849.) if able; indeed, I am bound to attempt it, for I am honoured beyond all measure in being one of the Vice-Presidents. I am uncommonly glad you will be there; I fear, however, we shall not have any such charming trips as Nuneham and Dropmore. (28/3. In a letter to Hooker (October 12th, 1849) Darwin speaks of "that heavenly day at Dropmore." ("Life and Letters," I., page 379.)) We shall stay here till at least June 1st, perhaps till July 1st; and I shall have to go on with the aqueous treatment at home for several more months. One most singular effect of the treatment is that it induces in most people, and eminently in my case, the most complete stagnation of mind. I have ceased to think even of barnacles! I heard some time since from Hooker...How capitally he seems to have succeeded in all his enterprises! You must be very busy now. I happened to be thinking the other day over the Gamlingay trip to the Lilies of the Valley (28/4. The Lily of the Valley (Convallaria majalis) is recorded from Gamlingay by Professor Babington in his "Flora of Cambridgeshire," page 234. (London, 1860.)): ah, those were delightful days when one had no such organ as a stomach, only a mouth and the masticating appurtenances. I am very much surprised at what you say, that men are beginning to work in earnest {at} Botany. What a loss it will be for Natural History that you have ceased to reside all the year in Cambridge!

Your thoughtful note has been forwarded to me here. You might be surprised to hear that we have all—children, servants, and everyone—been here for almost two months. Last autumn and winter, my health kept getting worse: constant sickness, shaky hands, and a dizzy head. I thought I was done for. After hearing about the success some people have had with the cold-water cure, I decided to stop trying to do anything and come here to see Dr. Gully. It has worked quite well: my sickness has improved a lot, and I've gained quite a bit of strength. Dr. G. also tells me, and I hear he rarely speaks with confidence, that he is pretty sure he can cure me eventually—though it will take time. I’ve come to believe that the cold-water cure is a powerful method that can change all sorts of health habits. Speaking of habits, the cruel man has made me stop using snuff—that main comfort of life. We sincerely thank you for your quick invitation to Hitcham for the British Association for 1850: if I get better and stronger, I’d be very happy to accept it; but as I am now, a daily drive of six miles would be more than I could handle while attending any of the sections. I plan to go to Birmingham if I'm able; in fact, I feel compelled to try, as I’m honored to be one of the Vice-Presidents. I’m really glad you’ll be there; however, I fear we won’t have any as lovely trips as Nuneham and Dropmore. We’ll stay here until at least June 1st, perhaps even until July 1st; and I will have to continue the water treatment at home for several more months. One very strange effect of the treatment is that it causes most people, especially me, to experience total mental stagnation. I’ve even stopped thinking about barnacles! I heard from Hooker a while ago...He seems to have done amazingly well in all his projects! You must be very busy now. I was thinking the other day about the Gamlingay trip to the Lilies of the Valley: ah, those were wonderful days when you didn’t have a stomach, just a mouth and the ability to chew. I find it very surprising what you said about men starting to take Botany seriously. What a loss for Natural History that you’ve stopped living in Cambridge year-round!

LETTER 29. TO J.F. ROYLE. Down, September 1st {184-?}.

I return you with very many thanks your valuable work. I am sure I have not lost any slip or disarranged the loose numbers. I have been interested by looking through the volumes, though I have not found quite so much as I had thought possible about the varieties of the Indian domestic animals and plants, and the attempts at introduction have been too recent for the effects (if any) of climate to have been developed. I have, however, been astonished and delighted at the evidence of the energetic attempts to do good by such numbers of people, and most of them evidently not personally interested in the result. Long may our rule flourish in India. I declare all the labour shown in these transactions is enough by itself to make one proud of one's countrymen...

I want to thank you so much for your valuable work. I'm confident I haven't lost any slips or mixed up the loose pages. I've enjoyed going through the volumes, although I didn’t find as much information as I had hoped regarding the different varieties of Indian domestic animals and plants, and the attempts to introduce them are too recent for any effects (if there are any) of the climate to be visible yet. However, I was both amazed and pleased by the evidence of so many people's dedicated efforts to do good, most of whom clearly have no personal stake in the outcome. May our rule in India thrive for a long time. I must say, the hard work shown in these transactions is enough to make anyone proud of their fellow countrymen...

LETTER 30. TO HUGH STRICKLAND.

(30/1. The first paragraph of this letter is published in the "Life and Letters," I., page 372, as part of a series of letters to Strickland, beginning at page 365, where a biographical note by Professor Newton is also given. Professor Newton wrote: "In 1841 he brought the subject of Natural History Nomenclature before the British Association, and prepared the code of rules for Zoological Nomenclature, now known by his name—the principles of which are very generally accepted." Mr. Darwin's reasons against appending the describer's name to that of the species are given in "Life and Letters," page 366. The present letter is of interest as giving additional details in regard to Darwin's difficulties.)

(30/1. The first paragraph of this letter is published in the "Life and Letters," I., page 372, as part of a series of letters to Strickland, starting at page 365, where there’s also a biographical note by Professor Newton. Professor Newton wrote: "In 1841, he introduced the topic of Natural History Nomenclature at the British Association and created the code of rules for Zoological Nomenclature, which is now named after him—the principles of which are widely accepted." Mr. Darwin's arguments against attaching the describer's name to that of the species are found in "Life and Letters," page 366. This letter is significant as it provides more details about Darwin's struggles.)

Down, February 10th {1849}.

Down, February 10, 1849.

I have again to thank you cordially for your letter. Your remarks shall fructify to some extent, and I will try to be more faithful to rigid virtue and priority; but as for calling Balanus "Lepas" (which I did not think of) I cannot do it, my pen won't write it—it is impossible. I have great hopes some of my difficulties will disappear, owing to wrong dates in Agassiz and to my having to run several genera into one; for I have as yet gone, in but few cases, to original sources. With respect to adopting my own notions in my Cirripedia book, I should not like to do so without I found others approved, and in some public way; nor indeed is it well adapted, as I can never recognise a species without I have the original specimen, which fortunately I have in many cases in the British Museum. Thus far I mean to adopt my notion, in never putting mihi or Darwin after my own species, and in the anatomical text giving no authors' names at all, as the systematic part will serve for those who want to know the history of the species as far as I can imperfectly work it out.

I want to sincerely thank you again for your letter. Your comments will definitely be helpful, and I'll try to stick to strict principles and priorities more. But as for calling Balanus "Lepas" (which I didn’t think of), I just can’t do it—my pen won’t write it; it’s impossible. I’m hopeful that some of my issues will be resolved because of the incorrect dates in Agassiz and because I’ve had to combine several genera into one; so far, I’ve only turned to original sources in a few cases. Regarding using my own ideas in my Cirripedia book, I wouldn’t want to do that without finding support from others in a public way; besides, it’s not well suited for me, as I can't recognize a species without the original specimen, which I’m lucky to have for many cases in the British Museum. For now, I plan to stick to my approach of never putting mihi or Darwin after my own species and, in the anatomical text, not including any authors' names at all, since the systematic part will cover the history of the species as far as I can work it out imperfectly.

I have had a note from W. Thompson (30/2. Mr. Thompson is described in the preface to the Lepadidae as "the distinguished Natural Historian of Ireland.") this morning, and he tells me Ogleby has some scheme identical almost with mine. I feel pretty sure there is a growing general aversion to the appendage of author's name, except in cases where necessary. Now at this moment I have seen specimens ticketed with a specific name and no reference—such are hopelessly inconvenient; but I declare I would rather (as saving time) have a reference to some second systematic work than to the original author, for I have cases of this which hardly help me at all, for I know not where to look amongst endless periodical foreign papers. On the other hand, one can get hold of most systematic works and so follow up the scent, and a species does not long lie buried exclusively in a paper.

I got a message from W. Thompson this morning (30/2. Mr. Thompson is referred to in the preface to the Lepadidae as "the distinguished Natural Historian of Ireland.") and he mentions that Ogleby has a plan that's almost identical to mine. I believe there's a growing tendency to dislike including the author's name unless it's absolutely necessary. Right now, I've seen specimens labeled with a specific name but no reference—those are really frustrating. Honestly, I'd rather have a reference to some other systematic work than to the original author, because I have examples where that doesn’t help me at all; I never know where to look amid all the endless foreign periodicals. On the flip side, most systematic works are accessible, so you can pursue a lead, and a species doesn’t stay hidden in just one paper for long.

I thank you sincerely for your very kind offer of occasionally assisting me with your opinion, and I will not trespass much. I have a case, but {it is one} about which I am almost sure; and so to save you writing, if I conclude rightly, pray do not answer, and I shall understand silence as assent.

I sincerely appreciate your kind offer to occasionally share your thoughts with me, and I won’t impose too much. I have a situation, but it’s one I feel pretty confident about; so to save you the trouble of writing, if I’m right, please don’t respond, and I’ll take your silence as agreement.

Olfers in 1814 made Lepas aurita Linn. into the genus Conchoderma; {Oken} in 1815 gave the name Branta to Lepas aurita and vittata, and by so doing he alters essentially Olfers' generic definition. Oken was right (as it turns out), and Lepas aurita and vittata must form together one genus. (30/3. In the "Monograph on the Cirripedia" (Lepadidae) the names used are Conchoderma aurita and virgata.) (I leave out of question a multitude of subsequent synonyms.) Now I suppose I must retain Conchoderma of Olfers. I cannot make out a precise rule in the "British Association Report" for this. When a genus is cut into two I see that the old name is retained for part and altered to it; so I suppose the definition may be enlarged to receive another species—though the cases are somewhat different. I should have had no doubt if Lepas aurita and vittata had been made into two genera, for then when run together the oldest of the two would have been retained. Certainly to put Conchoderma Olfers is not quite correct when applied to the two species, for such was not Olfers' definition and opinion. If I do not hear, I shall retain Conchoderma for the two species...

In 1814, Olfers classified Lepas aurita Linn. under the genus Conchoderma; then Oken, in 1815, renamed Lepas aurita and vittata to Branta, changing Olfers' original classification. As it turns out, Oken was correct, and Lepas aurita and vittata should actually belong to the same genus. (30/3. In the "Monograph on the Cirripedia" (Lepadidae), the names used are Conchoderma aurita and virgata.) (I'm not considering a host of later synonyms.) Now, I guess I have to keep Conchoderma as defined by Olfers. I can't find a clear rule in the "British Association Report" for this situation. When a genus is split into two, I see that the old name is kept for one part and changed for the other; so I assume the definition can be expanded to include another species—though the situations are a bit different. I would have had no doubt if Lepas aurita and vittata had been categorized as two separate genera, since then the older name would be kept when merged. Clearly, calling it Conchoderma Olfers is not entirely accurate for both species, as that wasn't Olfers' original definition or view. If I don't receive further input, I will keep Conchoderma for the two species...

P.S.—Will you by silence give consent to the following?

P.S.—Will you silently agree to the following?

Linnaeus gives no type to his genus Lepas, though L. balanus comes first. Several oldish authors have used Lepas exclusively for the pedunculate division, and the name has been given to the family and compounded in sub-generic names. Now, this shows that old authors attached the name Lepas more particularly to the pedunculate division. Now, if I were to use Lepas for Anatifera (30/4. Anatifera and Anatifa were used as generic names for what Linnaeus and Darwin called Lepas anatifera.) I should get rid of the difficulty of the second edition of Hill and of the difficulty of Anatifera vel Anatifa. Linnaeus's generic description is equally applicable to Anatifera and Balanus, though the latter stands first. Must the mere precedence rigorously outweigh the apparent opinion of many old naturalists? As for using Lepas in place of Balanus, I cannot. Every one will understand what is meant by Lepas Anatifera, so that convenience would be wonderfully thus suited. If I do not hear, I shall understand I have your consent.

Linnaeus didn't assign a type to his genus Lepas, even though L. balanus is listed first. Several older authors have used Lepas specifically for the pedunculate division, and the name has been applied to the family and incorporated into subgeneric names. This indicates that older authors linked the name Lepas more closely with the pedunculate division. If I were to use Lepas for Anatifera (30/4. Anatifera and Anatifa were used as generic names for what Linnaeus and Darwin called Lepas anatifera), I could resolve the issues present in the second edition of Hill and the complications with Anatifera or Anatifa. Linnaeus's generic description fits both Anatifera and Balanus, even though Balanus is listed first. Should the mere precedence take priority over the apparent views of many older naturalists? As for using Lepas instead of Balanus, I can't do that. Everyone would understand what is meant by Lepas Anatifera, making it very convenient. If I don't hear back, I'll take it as your approval.

LETTER 31. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(31/1. In the "Life and Letters," I., page 392, is a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker from Mr. Darwin, to whom the former had dedicated his "Himalayan Journals." Mr. Darwin there wrote: "Your letter, received this morning, has interested me extremely, and I thank you sincerely for telling me your old thoughts and aspirations." The following is the letter referred to, which at our request Sir Joseph has allowed us to publish.)

(31/1. In the "Life and Letters," I., page 392, is a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker from Mr. Darwin, to whom the former had dedicated his "Himalayan Journals." Mr. Darwin wrote: "Your letter, which I got this morning, has really intrigued me, and I genuinely appreciate you sharing your past thoughts and dreams." The following is the letter mentioned, which, at our request, Sir Joseph has permitted us to publish.)

Kew, March 1st, 1854.

Kew, March 1, 1854.

Now that my book (31/2. "Himalayan Journals," 2 volumes. London, 1854.) has been publicly acknowledged to be of some value, I feel bold to write to you; for, to tell you the truth, I have never been without a misgiving that the dedication might prove a very bad compliment, however kindly I knew you would receive it. The idea of the dedication has been present to me from a very early date: it was formed during the Antarctic voyage, out of love for your own "Journal," and has never deserted me since; nor would it, I think, had I never known more of you than by report and as the author of the said "Naturalist's Journal." Short of the gratification I felt in getting the book out, I know no greater than your kind, hearty acceptation of the dedication; and, had the reviewers gibbeted me, the dedication would alone have given me real pain. I have no wish to assume a stoical indifference to public opinion, for I am well alive to it, and the critics might have irritated me sorely, but they could never have caused me the regret that the association of your name with a bad book of mine would have.

Now that my book (31/2. "Himalayan Journals," 2 volumes. London, 1854.) has been recognized publicly as having some value, I feel confident writing to you. To be honest, I've always worried that the dedication might end up being a terrible compliment, even though I know you would take it kindly. The idea of dedicating it to you has been with me for a long time; it originated during the Antarctic voyage out of my admiration for your own "Journal," and it has never left me since. I believe it would have remained even if I had only known of you through hearsay as the author of the "Naturalist's Journal." Apart from the satisfaction I felt in publishing the book, nothing has meant more to me than your warm, generous acceptance of the dedication. Even if the reviewers had criticized me harshly, the dedication alone would have given me real distress. I don't want to pretend I’m indifferent to public opinion; I’m very aware of it, and while the critics could have bothered me a lot, they could never have caused me the regret that would have come from linking your name to a bad book of mine.

You will laugh when I tell you that, my book out, I feel past the meridian of life! But you do not know how from my earliest childhood I nourished and cherished the desire to make a creditable journey in a new country, and write such a respectable account of its natural features as should give me a niche amongst the scientific explorers of the globe I inhabit, and hand my name down as a useful contributor of original matter. A combination of most rare advantages has enabled me to gain as much of my object as contents me, for I never wished to be greatest amongst you, nor did rivalry ever enter my thoughts. No ulterior object has ever been present to me in this pursuit. My ambition is fully gratified by the satisfactory completion of my task, and I am now happy to go on jog-trot at Botany till the end of my days—downhill, in one sense, all the way. I shall never have such another object to work for, nor shall I feel the want of it...As it is, the craving of thirty years is satisfied, and I now look back on life in a way I never could previously. There never was a past hitherto to me. The phantom was always in view; mayhap it is only a "ridiculus mus" after all, but it is big enough for me...

You’ll laugh when I tell you that now that my book is out, I feel like I’ve passed the peak of my life! But you don’t understand how, since childhood, I’ve nurtured and cherished the desire to take an impressive journey in a new country and write a respectable account of its natural features that would earn me a spot among the scientific explorers of the world I live in, and establish my name as a valuable contributor of original ideas. A rare combination of opportunities has allowed me to achieve enough of my goal to feel satisfied, as I've never aimed to be the greatest among you, nor has competition ever crossed my mind. I’ve never had any ulterior motives in this pursuit. My ambition is fully satisfied by the successful completion of my task, and I’m now content to move along at a steady pace in Botany until the end of my days—downhill, in a sense, all the way. I’ll never have such a purpose to strive for again, nor will I miss it... As it is, the longing of thirty years is fulfilled, and I can now reflect on life in a way I never could before. There wasn't a past for me until now. The illusion was always in sight; maybe it’s just a "ridiculus mus" after all, but it’s big enough for me...

(PLATE: T.H. HUXLEY, 1857. Maull & Polyblank photo., Walker & Cockerell ph. sc.)

(32/1. The story of Huxley's life has been fully given in the interesting biography edited by Mr. Leonard Huxley. (32/2. "Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley." London 1900.) Readers of this book and of the "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" gain an insight into the relationship between this pair of friends to which any words of ours can add but little. Darwin realised to the full the essential strength of Mr. Huxley's nature; he knew, as all the world now knows, the delicate sense of honour of his friend, and he was ever inclined to lean on his guidance in practical matters, as on an elder brother. Of Mr. Huxley's dialectical and literary skill he was an enthusiastic admirer, and he never forgot what his theories owed to the fighting powers of his "general agent." (32/3. Ibid., I., page 171.) Huxley's estimate of Darwin is very interesting: he valued him most highly for what was so strikingly characteristic of himself—the love of truth. He spoke of finding in him "something bigger than ordinary humanity—an unequalled simplicity and directness of purpose—a sublime unselfishness." (32/4. Ibid., II., page 94. Huxley is speaking of Gordon's death, and goes on: "Of all the people whom I have met with in my life, he and Darwin are the two in whom I have found," etc.) The same point of view comes out in Huxley's estimate of Darwin's mental power. (32/5. Ibid., II., page 39.) "He had a clear, rapid intelligence, a great memory, a vivid imagination, and what made his greatness was the strict subordination of all these to his love of truth." This, as an analysis of Darwin's mental equipment, seems to us incomplete, though we do not pretend to mend it. We do not think it is possible to dissect and label the complex qualities which go to make up that which we all recognise as genius. But, if we may venture to criticise, we would say that Mr. Huxley's words do not seem to cover that supreme power of seeing and thinking what the rest of the world had overlooked, which was one of Darwin's most striking characteristics. As throwing light on the quality of their friendship, we give below a letter which has already appeared in the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," I., page 366. Mr. L. Huxley gives an account of the breakdown in health which convinced Huxley's friends that rest and relief from anxiety must be found for him. Mr. L. Huxley aptly remarks of the letter, "It is difficult to say whether it does more honour to him who sent it or to him who received it." (32/6. Huxley's "Life," I., page 366. Mr. Darwin left to Mr. Huxley a legacy of 1,000 pounds, "as a slight memorial of my lifelong affection and respect for him."))

(32/1. The story of Huxley's life has been thoroughly covered in the engaging biography edited by Mr. Leonard Huxley. (32/2. "Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley." London 1900.) Readers of this book, as well as "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," gain insight into the bond between these two friends, which our words can add very little to. Darwin fully recognized the fundamental strength of Mr. Huxley's character; he understood, as everyone now does, the delicate sense of honor of his friend and was always inclined to rely on his guidance in practical matters, much like an elder brother. He was an enthusiastic admirer of Mr. Huxley's debate and writing skills and never forgot the impact of Huxley's "general agent" on his theories. (32/3. Ibid., I., page 171.) Huxley's view of Darwin is quite fascinating: he held him in high regard for what he found so remarkably characteristic of himself—the love of truth. He mentioned discovering in Darwin "something greater than ordinary humanity—an unparalleled simplicity and directness of purpose—an admirable selflessness." (32/4. Ibid., II., page 94. Huxley is speaking of Gordon's death and continues: "Of all the people I have met in my life, he and Darwin are the two in whom I found," etc.) The same perspective is evident in Huxley's opinion of Darwin's intellectual abilities. (32/5. Ibid., II., page 39.) "He had a clear, quick intelligence, a great memory, a vivid imagination, and what made his greatness was the strict subordination of all these to his love of truth." This analysis of Darwin's mental talents seems incomplete to us, though we don't claim to improve it. We believe it's impossible to dissect and categorize the complex traits that make up what we all recognize as genius. But, if we may offer a critique, we would say that Mr. Huxley's comments don't seem to encompass the extraordinary ability to see and think about things that the rest of the world had missed, which was one of Darwin's most notable traits. To shed light on the quality of their friendship, we include below a letter that has already appeared in "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," I., page 366. Mr. L. Huxley provides an account of the health breakdown that convinced Huxley's friends that he needed rest and relief from stress. Mr. L. Huxley wisely notes about the letter, "It's hard to say whether it reflects more honor on the one who sent it or the one who received it." (32/6. Huxley's "Life," I., page 366. Mr. Darwin left Mr. Huxley a legacy of 1,000 pounds, "as a small token of my lifelong affection and respect for him."))

LETTER 32. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 23rd, 1873.

My dear Huxley

Dear Huxley

I have been asked by some of your friends (eighteen in number) to inform you that they have placed, through Robarts, Lubbock & Co., the sum of 2,100 pounds to your account at your bankers. We have done this to enable you to get such complete rest as you may require for the re-establishment of your health; and in doing this we are convinced that we act for the public interest, as well as in accordance with our most earnest desires. Let me assure you that we are all your warm personal friends, and that there is not a stranger or mere acquaintance amongst us. If you could have heard what was said, or could have read what was, as I believe, our inmost thoughts, you would know that we all feel towards you, as we should to an honoured and much loved brother. I am sure that you will return this feeling, and will therefore be glad to give us the opportunity of aiding you in some degree, as this will be a happiness to us to the last day of our lives. Let me add that our plan occurred to several of your friends at nearly the same time and quite independently of one another.

I’ve been asked by some of your friends (eighteen in total) to let you know that they have deposited 2,100 pounds to your account at your bank, through Robarts, Lubbock & Co. We’ve done this to give you the complete rest you need to recover your health; and we truly believe we’re acting in the public interest and in line with our deepest wishes. I want to assure you that we are all your close personal friends, and there’s not a single stranger or casual acquaintance among us. If you could have heard what was said or read what we, I believe, truly felt, you would understand that we all see you as an esteemed and beloved brother. I’m sure you feel the same way and will be happy to let us help you, as that would bring us joy for the rest of our lives. I should also mention that this plan came to several of your friends almost simultaneously and completely independently.

My dear Huxley, Your affectionate friend, CHARLES DARWIN.

My dear Huxley, Your caring friend, CHARLES DARWIN.

LETTER 33. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(33/1. The following letter is one of the earliest of the long series addressed to Mr. Huxley.)

(33/1. The following letter is one of the earliest in the long series addressed to Mr. Huxley.)

Down, April 23rd {1854}.

Down, April 23, 1854.

My dear Sir

Dear Sir

I have got out all the specimens, which I have thought could by any possibility be of any use to you; but I have not looked at them, and know not what state they are in, but should be much pleased if they are of the smallest use to you. I enclose a catalogue of habitats: I thought my notes would have turned out of more use. I have copied out such few points as perhaps would not be apparent in preserved specimens. The bottle shall go to Mr. Gray on Thursday next by our weekly carrier.

I’ve gathered all the specimens that I thought might be useful to you; however, I haven’t examined them and don’t know their condition. I would be really happy if they turn out to be at least a little helpful for you. I’m including a list of habitats; I believed my notes would be more beneficial. I’ve written down a few details that might not be obvious in preserved specimens. The bottle will be sent to Mr. Gray next Thursday via our weekly carrier.

I am very much obliged for your paper on the Mollusca (33/2. The paper of Huxley's is "On the Morphology of the Cephalous Mollusca, etc." ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 143, Part I., 1853, page 29.)); I have read it all with much interest: but it would be ridiculous in me to make any remarks on a subject on which I am so utterly ignorant; but I can see its high importance. The discovery of the type or "idea" (33/3. Huxley defines his use of the word "archetype" at page 50: "All that I mean is the conception of a form embodying the most general propositions that can be affirmed respecting the Cephalous Mollusca, standing in the same relation to them as the diagram to a geometrical theorem, and like it, at once, imaginary and true.") (in your sense, for I detest the word as used by Owen, Agassiz & Co.) of each great class, I cannot doubt, is one of the very highest ends of Natural History; and certainly most interesting to the worker-out. Several of your remarks have interested me: I am, however, surprised at what you say versus "anamorphism" (33/4. The passage referred to is at page 63: "If, however, all Cephalous Mollusks...be only modifications by excess or defect of the parts of a definite archetype, then, I think, it follows as a necessary consequence, that no anamorphism takes place in this group. There is no progression from a lower to a higher type, but merely a more or less complete evolution of one type." Huxley seems to use the term anamorphism in a sense differing from that of some writers. Thus in Jourdan's "Dictionnaire des Termes Usites dans les Sciences Naturelles," 1834, it is defined as the production of an atypical form either by arrest or excess of development.), I should have thought that the archetype in imagination was always in some degree embryonic, and therefore capable {of} and generally undergoing further development.

I really appreciate your paper on Mollusca (33/2. Huxley's paper is "On the Morphology of the Cephalous Mollusca, etc." ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 143, Part I., 1853, page 29.)); I read it all with great interest. However, it would be silly for me to comment on a topic I'm so completely unfamiliar with, but I do recognize its significant importance. The discovery of the type or "idea" (33/3. Huxley defines his use of the word "archetype" on page 50: "All that I mean is the conception of a form embodying the most general propositions that can be affirmed regarding the Cephalous Mollusca, standing in the same relation to them as the diagram to a geometrical theorem, and like it, both imaginary and true.") (in your sense, as I really dislike the term as used by Owen, Agassiz & Co.) of each major class is undoubtedly one of the highest goals of Natural History, and certainly fascinating for the researcher. Several of your points have caught my interest; however, I'm surprised by what you say regarding "anamorphism" (33/4. The passage referred to is on page 63: "If, however, all Cephalous Mollusks...are only modifications by excess or defect of the parts of a definite archetype, then, I think, it follows as a necessary consequence, that no anamorphism takes place in this group. There is no progression from a lower to a higher type, but merely a more or less complete evolution of one type." Huxley seems to use the term anamorphism differently than some writers do. In Jourdan's "Dictionnaire des Termes Usites dans les Sciences Naturelles," 1834, it is defined as the creation of an atypical form either by halting or excessively developing.), I would have assumed that the archetype in our imagination is always somewhat embryonic and thus able to and generally undergoing further development.

Is it not an extraordinary fact, the great difference in position of the heart in different species of Cleodora? (33/5. A genus of Pteropods.) I am a believer that when any part, usually constant, differs considerably in different allied species that it will be found in some degree variable within the limits of the same species. Thus, I should expect that if great numbers of specimens of some of the species of Cleodora had been examined with this object in view, the position of the heart in some of the species would have been found variable. Can you aid me with any analogous facts?

Isn't it amazing how different the heart's position is in various species of Cleodora? (33/5. A genus of Pteropods.) I believe that when a part that's usually consistent varies significantly among related species, it's likely to be somewhat variable within the same species as well. So, I would expect that if a lot of specimens from some Cleodora species had been studied with this in mind, the heart's position in some of those species would show variability. Can you help me with any similar examples?

I am very much pleased to hear that you have not given up the idea of noticing my cirripedial volume. All that I have seen since confirms everything of any importance stated in that volume—more especially I have been able rigorously to confirm in an anomalous species, by the clearest evidence, that the actual cellular contents of the ovarian tubes, by the gland-like action of a modified portion of the continuous tube, passes into the cementing stuff: in fact cirripedes make glue out of their own unformed eggs! (33/6. On Darwin's mistake in this point see "Life and Letters," III., page 2.)

I’m really glad to hear that you haven’t given up on the idea of reviewing my book on barnacles. Everything I've observed since then supports the important points made in that book. In particular, I’ve been able to confirm with clear evidence that in a unique species, the actual contents of the ovarian tubes, due to the gland-like activity of a modified section of the continuous tube, are converted into the adhesive substance: essentially, barnacles produce glue from their own undeveloped eggs! (33/6. On Darwin's mistake regarding this point, see "Life and Letters," III., page 2.)

Pray believe me, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.

I told the above case to Milne Edwards, and I saw he did not place the smallest belief in it.

I shared the situation with Milne Edwards, and I could see that he didn't believe it at all.

LETTER 34. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 2nd, {1854}.

My second volume on the everlasting barnacles is at last published (34/1. "A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia. II. The Balanidae, the Verrucidae." Ray Society, 1854.), and I will do myself the pleasure of sending you a copy to Jermyn Street next Thursday, as I have to send another book then to Mr. Baily.

My second volume on the enduring barnacles is finally published (34/1. "A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia. II. The Balanidae, the Verrucidae." Ray Society, 1854.), and I’ll be happy to send you a copy to Jermyn Street next Thursday, since I also need to send another book to Mr. Baily then.

And now I want to ask you a favour—namely, to answer me two questions. As you are so perfectly familiar with the doings, etc., of all Continental naturalists, I want you to tell me a few names of those whom you think would care for my volume. I do not mean in the light of puffing my book, but I want not to send copies to those who from other studies, age, etc., would view it as waste paper. From assistance rendered me, I consider myself bound to send copies to: (1) Bosquet of Maestricht, (2) Milne Edwards, (3) Dana, (4) Agassiz, (5) Muller, (6) W. Dunker of Hesse Cassel. Now I have five or six other copies to distribute, and will you be so very kind as to help me? I had thought of Von Siebold, Loven, d'Orbigny, Kolliker, Sars, Kroyer, etc., but I know hardly anything about any of them.

And now I’d like to ask you for a favor—specifically, to answer two questions for me. Since you’re so well-acquainted with the work of all the naturalists from the Continent, could you give me a few names of those you think would be interested in my book? I’m not looking for anyone to promote it, but I want to avoid sending copies to people who, because of their other studies, age, etc., might just toss it aside. Based on the help I’ve received, I feel obligated to send copies to: (1) Bosquet of Maestricht, (2) Milne Edwards, (3) Dana, (4) Agassiz, (5) Muller, (6) W. Dunker of Hesse Cassel. Now I have another five or six copies to give away, and would you be really kind and assist me? I had thought of reaching out to Von Siebold, Loven, d'Orbigny, Kolliker, Sars, Kroyer, etc., but I don’t know much about them.

My second question, it is merely a chance whether you can answer,—it is whether I can send these books or any of them (in some cases accompanied by specimens), through the Royal Society: I have some vague idea of having heard that the Royal Society did sometimes thus assist members.

My second question is just a matter of chance—can you answer it? It's whether I can send these books or any of them (in some cases with samples) through the Royal Society. I vaguely remember hearing that the Royal Society occasionally helped members in this way.

I have just been reading your review of the "Vestiges" (34/2. In his chapter on the "Reception of the Origin of Species" ("Life and Letters," II., pages 188-9), Mr. Huxley wrote: "and the only review I ever have qualms of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one I wrote on the 'Vestiges.'" The article is in the "British and Foreign Medico-chirurgical Review," XIII., 1854, page 425. The "great man" referred to below is Owen: see Huxley's review, page 439, and Huxley's "Life." I., page 94.), and the way you handle a great Professor is really exquisite and inimitable. I have been extremely interested in other parts, and to my mind it is incomparably the best review I have read on the "Vestiges"; but I cannot think but that you are rather hard on the poor author. I must think that such a book, if it does no other good, spreads the taste for Natural Science.

I just read your review of the "Vestiges" (34/2). In his chapter on the "Reception of the Origin of Species" ("Life and Letters," II., pages 188-9), Mr. Huxley wrote: "and the only review I ever have qualms of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one I wrote on the 'Vestiges.'" The article is in the "British and Foreign Medico-chirurgical Review," XIII., 1854, page 425. The "great man" referred to below is Owen: see Huxley's review, page 439, and Huxley's "Life," I., page 94. The way you handle a great Professor is really impressive and unmatched. I found other parts extremely interesting, and I believe it’s by far the best review I've read on the "Vestiges"; however, I can’t help but think you might be a bit harsh on the poor author. I believe that such a book, if it does nothing else, promotes an appreciation for Natural Science.

But I am perhaps no fair judge, for I am almost as unorthodox about species as the "Vestiges" itself, though I hope not quite so unphilosophical. How capitally you analyse his notion about law. I do not know when I have read a review which interested me so much. By Heavens, how the blood must have gushed into the capillaries when a certain great man (whom with all his faults I cannot help liking) read it!

But I might not be the best judge since I'm almost as unconventional about species as the "Vestiges" itself, though I hope I'm not quite as unphilosophical. You really break down his idea about law so well. I can't remember the last time I read a review that captivated me this much. Goodness, I can only imagine how the blood must have rushed to the capillaries when a certain great man (whom I still like despite all his flaws) read it!

I am rather sorry you do not think more of Agassiz's embryological stages (34/3. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 310: also Letter 40, Note.), for though I saw how exceedingly weak the evidence was, I was led to hope in its truth.

I’m quite sorry you don’t think more highly of Agassiz’s embryological stages (34/3. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 310: also Letter 40, Note.), because even though I recognized how weak the evidence was, I was still hopeful about its validity.

LETTER 35. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1854}.

With respect to "highness" and "lowness," my ideas are only eclectic and not very clear. It appears to me that an unavoidable wish to compare all animals with men, as supreme, causes some confusion; and I think that nothing besides some such vague comparison is intended, or perhaps is even possible, when the question is whether two kingdoms such as the Articulata or Mollusca are the highest. Within the same kingdom I am inclined to think that "highest" usually means that form which has undergone most "morphological differentiation" from the common embryo or archetype of the class; but then every now and then one is bothered (as Milne Edwards has remarked) by "retrograde development," i.e., the mature animal having fewer and less important organs than its own embryo. The specialisation of parts to different functions, or "the division of physiological labour" (35/1. A slip of the pen for "physiological division of labour.") of Milne Edwards exactly agrees (and to my mind is the best definition, when it can be applied) with what you state is your idea in regard to plants. I do not think zoologists agree in any definite ideas on this subject; and my ideas are not clearer than those of my brethren.

Regarding "highness" and "lowness," my thoughts are eclectic and not very clear. It seems to me that an unavoidable urge to compare all animals to humans, as the highest beings, creates some confusion; and I believe that nothing more than such a vague comparison is intended, or perhaps even possible, when considering whether two groups like the Articulata or Mollusca are the highest. Within the same group, I tend to think that "highest" usually refers to the form that has undergone the most "morphological differentiation" from the common embryo or archetype of the class; however, sometimes one is troubled (as Milne Edwards noted) by "retrograde development," meaning the adult animal has fewer and less significant organs than its own embryo. The specialization of parts for different functions, or "the division of physiological labour" (35/1. A slip of the pen for "physiological division of labour.") suggested by Milne Edwards fits perfectly (and in my opinion is the best definition, when applicable) with what you say reflects your view on plants. I don’t think zoologists have any clear consensus on this subject; and my thoughts are no clearer than those of my colleagues.

LETTER 36. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 2nd {1854}.

I have had the house full of visitors, and when I talk I can do absolutely nothing else; and since then I have been poorly enough, otherwise I should have answered your letter long before this, for I enjoy extremely discussing such points as those in your last note. But what a villain you are to heap gratuitous insults on my ELASTIC theory: you might as well call the virtue of a lady elastic, as the virtue of a theory accommodating in its favours. Whatever you may say, I feel that my theory does give me some advantages in discussing these points. But to business: I keep my notes in such a way, viz., in bulk, that I cannot possibly lay my hand on any reference; nor as far as the vegetable kingdom is concerned do I distinctly remember having read any discussion on general highness or lowness, excepting Schleiden (I fancy) on Compositae being highest. Ad. de Jussieu (36/1. "Monographie de la Famille des Malpighiacees," by Adrien de Jussieu, "Arch. du Museum." Volume III., page 1, 1843.), in "Arch. du Museum," Tome 3, discusses the value of characters of degraded flowers in the Malpighiaceae, but I doubt whether this at all concerns you. Mirbel somewhere has discussed some such question.

I’ve had the house full of visitors, and when I talk, I can’t focus on anything else. Since then, I’ve been feeling a bit unwell, or else I would have replied to your letter much sooner because I really enjoy discussing the topics you brought up in your last note. But what a jerk you are to throw unwarranted insults at my ELASTIC theory: you might as well call a lady’s virtue elastic as the virtue of a theory that’s flexible in its support. No matter what you say, I believe my theory does give me some advantages in these discussions. But getting to the point: I keep my notes in bulk so I can’t find any specific references, and as for the plant kingdom, I don’t clearly remember reading any discussions on general highness or lowness, except for what I think was Schleiden discussing Compositae being the highest. Adrien de Jussieu (36/1. "Monographie de la Famille des Malpighiacees," by Adrien de Jussieu, "Arch. du Museum." Volume III., page 1, 1843.) talks about the value of degraded flower characteristics in Malpighiaceae in "Arch. du Museum," Tome 3, but I doubt that’s really relevant to you. Mirbel has touched on something similar somewhere.

Plants lie under an enormous disadvantage in respect to such discussions in not passing through larval stages. I do not know whether you can distinguish a plant low from non-development from one low from degradation, which theoretically, at least, are very distinct. I must agree with Forbes that a mollusc may be higher than one articulate animal and lower than another; if one was asked which was highest as a whole, the Molluscan or Articulate Kingdom, I should look to and compare the highest in each, and not compare their archetypes (supposing them to be known, which they are not.)

Plants are at a huge disadvantage in discussions like these because they don’t go through larval stages. I’m not sure if you can tell the difference between a plant that’s low due to non-development and one that’s low due to degradation, which, at least theoretically, are quite different. I have to agree with Forbes that a mollusk can be more advanced than one segmented animal and less advanced than another; if someone asked which is more advanced overall, the Molluscan or Articulate Kingdom, I would look at and compare the most advanced in each, rather than comparing their archetypes (assuming we even know what they are, which we don't).

But there are, in my opinion, more difficult cases than any we have alluded to, viz., that of fish—but my ideas are not clear enough, and I do not suppose you would care to hear what I obscurely think on this subject. As far as my elastic theory goes, all I care about is that very ancient organisms (when different from existing) should tend to resemble the larval or embryological stages of the existing.

But I think there are more challenging cases than the ones we've mentioned, like those involving fish—but I'm not clear enough in my thoughts, and I doubt you’d want to hear my vague ideas on this topic. Regarding my flexible theory, what matters to me is that very old organisms (when they're different from today’s) should tend to look like the larval or embryonic stages of current organisms.

I am glad to hear what you say about parallelism: I am an utter disbeliever of any parallelism more than mere accident. It is very strange, but I think Forbes is often rather fanciful; his "Polarity" (36/2. See Letter 41, Note.) makes me sick—it is like "magnetism" turning a table.

I’m happy to hear your thoughts on parallelism: I completely don’t believe in any parallelism beyond pure chance. It’s quite odd, but I think Forbes tends to be a bit fanciful; his "Polarity" (36/2. See Letter 41, Note.) makes me feel nauseous—it’s like “magnetism” moving a table.

If I can think of any one likely to take your "Illustrations" (36/3. "Illustrations of Himalayan Plants from Drawings made by J.F. Cathcart." Folio, 1855.), I will send the advertisement. If you want to make up some definite number so as to go to press, I will put my name down with PLEASURE (and I hope and believe that you will trust me in saying so), though I should not in the course of nature subscribe to any horticultural work:—act for me.

If I can think of anyone who might want your "Illustrations" (36/3. "Illustrations of Himalayan Plants from Drawings made by J.F. Cathcart." Folio, 1855.), I'll send the ad. If you want to settle on a specific number to print, I'd be happy to put my name down (and I hope you trust me when I say this), even though I wouldn't typically subscribe to any horticultural work:—just go ahead and act on my behalf.

LETTER 37. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, {May} 29th, 1854.

LETTER 37. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 29, 1854.

I am really truly sorry to hear about your {health}. I entreat you to write down your own case,—symptoms, and habits of life,—and then consider your case as that of a stranger; and I put it to you, whether common sense would not order you to take more regular exercise and work your brain less. (N.B. Take a cold bath and walk before breakfast.) I am certain in the long run you would not lose time. Till you have a thoroughly bad stomach, you will not know the really great evil of it, morally, physically, and every way. Do reflect and act resolutely. Remember your troubled heart-action formerly plainly told how your constitution was tried. But I will say no more—excepting that a man is mad to risk health, on which everything, including his children's inherited health, depends. Do not hate me for this lecture. Really I am not surprised at your having some headache after Thursday evening, for it must have been no small exertion making an abstract of all that was said after dinner. Your being so engaged was a bore, for there were several things that I should have liked to have talked over with you. It was certainly a first-rate dinner, and I enjoyed it extremely, far more than I expected. Very far from disagreeing with me, my London visits have just lately taken to suit my stomach admirably; I begin to think that dissipation, high-living, with lots of claret, is what I want, and what I had during the last visit. We are going to act on this same principle, and in a very profligate manner have just taken a pair of season-tickets to see the Queen open the Crystal Palace. (37/1. Queen Victoria opened the Crystal Palace at Sydenham on June 10th, 1854.) How I wish there was any chance of your being there! The last grand thing we were at together answered, I am sure, very well, and that was the Duke's funeral.

I’m really sorry to hear about your {health}. I urge you to write down your situation—your symptoms and lifestyle habits—and then look at it as if it belongs to someone else. Ask yourself if common sense wouldn’t suggest you should get more regular exercise and give your brain a break. (N.B. Take a cold shower and go for a walk before breakfast.) I’m sure in the long run you wouldn’t be wasting your time. Until you experience a really bad stomach, you won’t realize the serious harm it can cause, in every sense. Please think about this and take action. Remember how your troubled heartbeat used to show just how much strain your body was under. But I won’t say more, except that it’s foolish to risk your health, which affects everything, including your children's future health. Don’t be upset with me for saying this. I’m honestly not surprised you had a headache after Thursday night; it must have been quite an effort to summarize everything that was discussed after dinner. I found your involvement a bit frustrating because there were a few things I wanted to discuss with you. The dinner was definitely excellent, and I enjoyed it much more than I anticipated. Contrary to what you might think, my recent visits to London have actually suited my stomach perfectly; I’m beginning to believe that a bit of indulgence, fine dining, and plenty of claret is what I need, which I had during my last visit. We plan to follow this idea and, quite extravagantly, we’ve just purchased season tickets to see the Queen open the Crystal Palace. (37/1. Queen Victoria opened the Crystal Palace at Sydenham on June 10th, 1854.) I really wish there was a chance for you to be there! The last significant event we attended together went very well, and that was the Duke's funeral.

Have you seen Forbes' introductory lecture (37/2. Edward Forbes was appointed to a Professorship at Edinburgh in May, 1854.) in the "Scotsman" (lent me by Horner)? it is really ADMIRABLY done, though without anything, perhaps, very original, which could hardly be expected: it has given me even a higher opinion than I before had, of the variety and polish of his intellect. It is, indeed, an irreparable loss to London natural history society. I wish, however, he would not praise so much that old brown dry stick Jameson. Altogether, to my taste, it is much the best introductory lecture I have ever read. I hear his anniversary address is very good.

Have you seen Forbes' introductory lecture (37/2. Edward Forbes was appointed to a Professorship at Edinburgh in May, 1854.) in the "Scotsman" (borrowed from Horner)? It's really WELL-DONE, even if it doesn’t have anything particularly original, which was probably to be expected. It has actually given me an even higher opinion of the variety and polish of his intellect than I had before. It's truly an irreplaceable loss for the London natural history society. However, I wish he wouldn't praise that old, stuffy Jameson so much. Overall, I think it's the best introductory lecture I've ever read. I’ve heard his anniversary address is really good.

Adios, my dear Hooker; do be wise and good, and be careful of your stomach, within which, as I know full well, lie intellect, conscience, temper, and the affections.

Adios, my dear Hooker; please be smart and kind, and take care of your stomach, where, as I know very well, your mind, conscience, temperament, and feelings reside.

LETTER 38. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 2nd {1854}.

You are a pretty fellow to talk of funking the returning thanks at the dinner for the medal. (38/1. The Royal medal was given to Sir Joseph in 1854.) I heard that it was decidedly the best speech of the evening, given "with perfect fluency, distinctness, and command of language," and that you showed great self-possession: was the latter the proverbially desperate courage of a coward? But you are a pretty fellow to be so desperately afraid and then to make the crack speech. Many such an ordeal may you have to go through! I do not know whether Sir William {Hooker} would be contented with Lord Rosse's (38/2. President of the Royal Society 1848-54.) speech on giving you the medal; but I am very much pleased with it, and really the roll of what you have done was, I think, splendid. What a great pity he half spoiled it by not having taken the trouble just to read it over first. Poor Hofmann (38/3. August Wilhelm Hofmann, the other medallist of 1854.) came off in this respect even worse. It is really almost arrogant insolence against every one not an astronomer.

You’re quite something to talk about skipping the thanks at the dinner for the medal. (38/1. The Royal medal was given to Sir Joseph in 1854.) I heard it was definitely the best speech of the evening, delivered "with perfect fluency, distinctness, and command of language," and that you showed great composure: was that just the typical desperate bravery of a coward? But you’re really something to be so terrified and then give the standout speech. I hope you have to face many more such challenges! I don't know if Sir William {Hooker} would be satisfied with Lord Rosse's (38/2. President of the Royal Society 1848-54.) speech when presenting you the medal, but I’m very happy with it, and honestly, the summary of what you’ve accomplished was, I think, impressive. What a shame he nearly ruined it by not taking the time to read it over first. Poor Hofmann (38/3. August Wilhelm Hofmann, the other medallist of 1854.) came off even worse in this regard. It’s really quite disrespectful to everyone who isn’t an astronomer.

The next morning I was at a very pleasant breakfast party at Sir R. Inglis's. (38/4. Sir Robert Inglis, President of the British Association in 1847. Apparently Darwin was present at the afternoon meeting, but not at the dinner.) I have received, with very many thanks, the aberrant genera; but I have not had time to consider them, nor your remarks on Australian botanical geography.

The next morning, I attended a lovely breakfast gathering at Sir R. Inglis's. (38/4. Sir Robert Inglis, President of the British Association in 1847. Apparently, Darwin was there for the afternoon meeting but not for dinner.) I've received the unusual genera, for which I am very grateful, but I haven't had the chance to look them over or your comments on Australian botanical geography.

LETTER 39. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(39/1. The following letter shows Darwin's interest in the adjudication of the Royal medals. The year 1855 was the last during which he served on the Council of the Society. He had previously served in 1849-50.)

(39/1. The following letter shows Darwin's interest in the decision-making regarding the Royal medals. The year 1855 was the last year he served on the Council of the Society. He had previously served in 1849-50.)

Down, March 31st, 1855.

Down, March 31, 1855.

I have thought and enquired much about Westwood, and I really think he amply deserves the gold medal. But should you think of some one with higher claim I am quite ready to give up. Indeed, I suppose without I get some one to second it, I cannot propose him.

I’ve thought a lot about Westwood, and I really believe he deserves the gold medal. But if you think someone has a stronger claim, I'm completely fine with letting it go. Honestly, I guess I can’t propose him unless I find someone to back me up.

Will you be so kind as to read the enclosed, and return it to me? Should I send it to Bell? That is, without you demur or convince me. I had thought of Hancock, a higher class of labourer; but, as far as I can weigh, he has not, as yet, done so much as Westwood. I may state that I read the whole "Classification" (39/2. Possibly Westwood's "Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects" (1839).) before I was on the Council, and ever thought on the subject of medals. I fear my remarks are rather lengthy, but to do him justice I could not well shorten them. Pray tell me frankly whether the enclosed is the right sort of thing, for though I was once on the Council of the Royal, I never attended any meetings, owing to bad health.

Could you please read the enclosed and send it back to me? Should I send it to Bell? That is, without you hesitating or trying to change my mind. I had considered Hancock, a higher level of worker; but as far as I can tell, he hasn't done as much as Westwood yet. I should mention that I read the entire "Classification" (39/2. Possibly Westwood's "Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects" (1839).) before I was on the Council and even thought about medals. I worry that my comments are a bit long, but to be fair, I couldn’t really shorten them. Please tell me honestly if the enclosed is the right kind of thing, because even though I was once on the Council of the Royal, I never attended any meetings due to health issues.

With respect to the Copley medal (39/3. The Copley Medal was given to Lyell in 1858.), I have a strong feeling that Lyell has a high claim, but as he has had the Royal Medal I presume that it would be thought objectionable to propose him; and as I intend (you not objecting and converting me) to propose W. for the Royal, it would, of course, appear intolerably presumptuous to propose for the Copley also.

With regard to the Copley Medal (39/3. The Copley Medal was awarded to Lyell in 1858.), I genuinely believe Lyell deserves it, but since he has already received the Royal Medal, I assume it would be seen as inappropriate to suggest him. And since I plan to propose W. for the Royal (assuming you don't object and change my mind), it would naturally come off as overly arrogant to propose him for the Copley as well.

LETTER 40. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 10th, 1855.

Shall you attend the Council of the Royal Society on Thursday next? I have not been very well of late, and I doubt whether I can attend; and if I could do anything (pray conceal the scandalous fact), I want to go to the Crystal Palace to meet the Horners, Lyells, and a party. So I want to know whether you will speak for me most strongly for Barrande. You know better than I do his admirable labours on the development of trilobites, and his most important work on his Lower or Primordial Zone. I enclose an old note of Lyell's to show what he thinks. With respect to Dana, whom I also proposed, you know well his merits. I can speak most highly of his classificatory work on crustacea and his Geographical Distribution. His Volcanic Geology is admirable, and he has done much good work on coral reefs.

Are you going to the Council of the Royal Society next Thursday? I haven’t been feeling well lately, and I’m not sure if I can make it; and if I could do anything (please keep this under wraps), I want to go to the Crystal Palace to meet the Horners, Lyells, and a group. So, I’d like to know if you could strongly advocate for Barrande on my behalf. You know better than I do about his excellent work on the development of trilobites and his important research on the Lower or Primordial Zone. I’m including an old note from Lyell to show you his thoughts. Regarding Dana, whom I also suggested, you know his strengths well. I can speak very highly of his classification work on crustaceans and his research on Geographical Distribution. His work on Volcanic Geology is outstanding, and he has done a lot of valuable research on coral reefs.

If you attend, do not answer this; but if you cannot be at the Council, please inform me, and I suppose I must, if I can, attend.

If you're coming, don't respond to this; but if you can't make it to the Council, please let me know, and I guess I should try to attend if I can.

Thank you for your abstract of your lecture at the Royal Institution, which interested me much, and rather grieved me, for I had hoped things had been in a slight degree otherwise. (40/1. "On certain Zoological Arguments commonly adduced in favour of the hypothesis of the Progressive Development of Animal Life," Discourse, Friday, April 20, 1855: "Proceedings R.I." (1855). Published also in "Huxley's Scientific Memoirs." The lecturer dwelt chiefly on the argument of Agassiz, which he summarises as follows: "Homocercal fishes have in their embryonic state heterocercal tails; therefore heterocercality is, so far, a mark of an embryonic state as compared with homocercality, and the earlier heterocercal fish are embryonic as compared with the later homocercal." He shows that facts do not support this view, and concludes generally "that there is no real parallel between the successive forms assumed in the development of the life of the individual at present and those which have appeared at different epochs in the past.") I heard some time ago that before long I might congratulate you on becoming a married man. (40/2. Mr. Huxley was married July 21st, 1855.) From my own experience of some fifteen years, I am very sure that there is nothing in this wide world which more deserves congratulation, and most sincerely and heartily do I congratulate you, and wish you many years of as much happiness as this world can afford.

Thank you for sharing the summary of your lecture at the Royal Institution. I found it very interesting, though it also saddened me a bit, as I had hoped for a slightly different perspective. (40/1. "On certain Zoological Arguments commonly presented in support of the hypothesis of the Progressive Development of Animal Life," Discourse, Friday, April 20, 1855: "Proceedings R.I." (1855). Also published in "Huxley's Scientific Memoirs." The lecturer focused mainly on Agassiz's argument, which he summarizes like this: "Homocercal fishes have heterocercal tails in their embryonic stage; thus, heterocercality indicates an embryonic state compared to homocercality, and the earlier heterocercal fish are embryonic when compared to the later homocercal ones." He shows that the facts don't back this view and concludes that "there's no real parallel between the forms taken during an individual's development today and those that appeared during different eras in the past.") I heard some time ago that soon I might be congratulating you on your marriage. (40/2. Mr. Huxley married on July 21st, 1855.) From my own fifteen years of experience, I'm certain that there's nothing in this world that deserves congratulations more than this, and I sincerely and wholeheartedly congratulate you, wishing you many years of as much happiness as this world can provide.

LETTER 41. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(41/1. The following letter illustrates Darwin's work on aberrant genera. In the "Origin," Edition I., page 429, he wrote: "The more aberrant any form is, the greater must be the number of connecting forms which, on my theory, have been exterminated and utterly lost. And we have some evidence of aberrant forms having suffered severely from extinction, for they are generally represented by extremely few species; and such species as do occur are generally very distinct from each other, which again implies extinction.")

(41/1. The following letter illustrates Darwin's work on unusual genera. In the "Origin," Edition I., page 429, he wrote: "The more unusual any form is, the greater the number of connecting forms that, according to my theory, have been wiped out and completely lost. We also have some evidence that unusual forms have faced significant extinction, as they are usually represented by very few species; and the species that do exist are typically quite distinct from one another, which further suggests extinction.")

Down, November 15th {1855?}.

Down, November 15, 1855.

In Schoenherr's Catalogue of Curculionidae (41/2. "Genera et Species Curculionidum." (C.J. Schoenherr: Paris, 1833-38.)), the 6,717 species are on an average 10.17 to a genus. Waterhouse (who knows the group well, and who has published on fewness of species in aberrant genera) has given me a list of 62 aberrant genera, and these have on an average 7.6 species; and if one single genus be removed (and which I cannot yet believe ought to be considered aberrant), then the 61 aberrant genera would have only 4.91 species on an average. I tested these results in another way. I found in Schoenherr 9 families, including only 11 genera, and these genera (9 of which were in Waterhouse's list) I found included only 3.36 species on an average.

In Schoenherr's Catalogue of Curculionidae (41/2. "Genera et Species Curculionidum." (C.J. Schoenherr: Paris, 1833-38.)), there are 6,717 species, averaging 10.17 species per genus. Waterhouse, who is knowledgeable about this group and has discussed the scarcity of species in unusual genera, provided me with a list of 62 unusual genera, which average 7.6 species each. If we exclude one genus (which I'm not yet convinced should be classified as unusual), the remaining 61 unusual genera would average only 4.91 species each. I also tested these findings differently. I found 9 families in Schoenherr that included only 11 genera, and these genera (9 of which were in Waterhouse's list) averaged only 3.36 species each.

This last result led me to Lindley's "Vegetable Kingdom," in which I found (excluding thallogens and acrogens) that the genera include each 10.46 species (how near by chance to the Curculionidae), and I find 21 orders including single genera, and these 21 genera have on average 7.95 species; but if Lindley is right that Erythroxylon (with its 75 species) ought to be amongst the Malpighiads, then the average would be only 4.6 per genus.

This last result led me to Lindley's "Vegetable Kingdom," where I found (excluding thallogens and acrogens) that the genera each include about 10.46 species (which is surprisingly close to the Curculionidae). I found 21 orders that include single genera, and these 21 genera average around 7.95 species; however, if Lindley is correct that Erythroxylon (with its 75 species) should be classified among the Malpighiads, then the average would drop to 4.6 species per genus.

But here comes, as it appears to me, an odd thing (I hope I shall not quite weary you out). There are 29 other orders, each with 2 genera, and these 58 genera have on an average 15.07 species: this great number being owing to the 10 genera in the Smilaceae, Salicaceae (with 220 species), Begoniaceae, Balsaminaceae, Grossulariaceae, without which the remaining 48 genera have on an average only 5.91 species.

But here comes, as it seems to me, a strange thing (I hope I won't completely wear you out). There are 29 other orders, each with 2 genera, and these 58 genera have an average of 15.07 species: this large number is due to the 10 genera in the Smilaceae, Salicaceae (with 220 species), Begoniaceae, Balsaminaceae, and Grossulariaceae, without which the remaining 48 genera have an average of only 5.91 species.

This case of the orders with only 2 genera, the genera notwithstanding having 15.07 species each, seems to me very perplexing and upsets, almost, the conclusion deducible from the orders with single genera.

This situation involving orders with just 2 genera, despite each genus having 15.07 species, seems really confusing to me and almost overturns the conclusions that can be drawn from orders with single genera.

I have gone higher, and tested the alliances with 1, 2, and 3 orders; and in these cases I find both the genera few in each alliance, and the species, less than the average of the whole kingdom, in each genus.

I have ascended further and examined the alliances with 1, 2, and 3 orders; and in these instances, I discover that both the genera are few in each alliance, and the species are below the average of the entire kingdom in each genus.

All this has amused me, but I daresay you will have a good sneer at me, and tell me to stick to my barnacles. By the way, you agree with me that sometimes one gets despondent—for instance, when theory and facts will not harmonise; but what appears to me even worse, and makes me despair, is, when I see from the same great class of facts, men like Barrande deduce conclusions, such as his "Colonies" (41/3. Lyell briefly refers to Barrande's Bohemian work in a letter (August 31st, 1856) to Fleming ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," II., page 225): "He explained to me on the spot his remarkable discovery of a 'colony' of Upper Silurian fossils, 3,400 feet deep, in the midst of the Lower Silurian group. This has made a great noise, but I think I can explain away the supposed anomaly by, etc." (See Letter 40, Note.) and his agreement with E. de Beaumont's lines of Elevation, or such men as Forbes with his Polarity (41/4. Edward Forbes "On the Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of Organised Beings in Time" ("Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," Volume LVII., 1854, page 332). The author points out that "the maximum development of generic types during the Palaeozoic period was during its earlier epochs; that during the Neozoic period towards its later periods." Thus the two periods of activity are conceived to be at the two opposite poles of a sphere which in some way represents for him the system of Nature.); I have not a doubt that before many months are over I shall be longing for the most dishonest species as being more honest than the honestest theories. One remark more. If you feel any interest, or can get any one else to feel any interest on the aberrant genera question, I should think the most interesting way would be to take aberrant genera in any great natural family, and test the average number of species to the genera in that family.

All this has made me laugh, but I bet you'll have a good laugh at my expense and tell me to stick to my barnacles. By the way, do you agree with me that sometimes we feel down—like when theories and facts don’t match up? But what feels even worse, and really gets me down, is when I see people like Barrande drawing conclusions from the same set of significant facts, like his "Colonies" (41/3. Lyell briefly mentions Barrande’s work in a letter (August 31st, 1856) to Fleming ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," II., page 225): "He explained to me right then his remarkable discovery of a 'colony' of Upper Silurian fossils, 3,400 feet deep, amid the Lower Silurian group. This has created quite a stir, but I think I can clarify the supposed anomaly by, etc." (See Letter 40, Note.) and his agreement with E. de Beaumont’s lines of Elevation, or people like Forbes with his Polarity (41/4. Edward Forbes "On the Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of Organised Beings in Time" ("Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," Volume LVII., 1854, page 332). The author points out that "the maximum development of generic types during the Palaeozoic period was during its earlier epochs; that during the Neozoic period towards its later periods." So, the two active periods are thought to be at the two opposite ends of a sphere that somehow represents Nature’s system.); I have no doubt that before long, I’ll be wishing for the most dishonest species because they seem more honest than the best theories. One more thing. If you're interested or can get someone else interested in the aberrant genera question, I think the most interesting approach would be to take aberrant genera in any major natural family and compare the average number of species to the genera in that family.

How I wish we lived near each other! I should so like a talk with you on geographical distribution, taken in its greatest features. I have been trying from land productions to take a very general view of the world, and I should so like to see how far it agrees with plants.

How I wish we lived close to each other! I would really love to have a conversation with you about geographical distribution in its broadest aspects. I've been trying to get an overall perspective of the world based on land production, and I would really like to see how much it matches up with plants.

LETTER 42. TO MRS. LYELL.

(42/1. Mrs. Lyell is a daughter of the late Mr. Leonard Horner, and widow of Lieut.-Col. Lyell, a brother of Sir Charles.)

(42/1. Mrs. Lyell is the daughter of the late Mr. Leonard Horner and the widow of Lieut.-Col. Lyell, who was a brother of Sir Charles.)

Down, January 26th {1856}.

Down, January 26, 1856.

I shall be very glad to be of any sort of use to you in regard to the beetles. But first let me thank you for your kind note and offer of specimens to my children. My boys are all butterfly hunters; and all young and ardent lepidopterists despise, from the bottom of their souls, coleopterists.

I would be happy to help you with the beetles. But first, let me thank you for your thoughtful note and your offer of specimens for my kids. My boys are all into butterfly hunting, and every young, passionate lepidopterist deeply looks down on coleopterists.

The simplest plan for your end and for the good of entomology, I should think, would be to offer the collection to Dr. J.E. Gray for the British Museum on condition that a perfect set was made out for you. If the collection was at all valuable, I should think he would be very glad to have this done. Whether any third set would be worth making out would depend on the value of the collection. I do not suppose that you expect the insects to be named, for that would be a most serious labour. If you do not approve of this scheme, I should think it very likely that Mr. Waterhouse would think it worth his while to set a series for you, retaining duplicates for himself; but I say this only on a venture. You might trust Mr. Waterhouse implicitly, which I fear, as {illegible} goes, is more than can be said for all entomologists. I presume, if you thought of either scheme, Sir Charles Lyell could easily see the gentlemen and arrange it; but, if not, I could do so when next I come to town, which, however, will not be for three or four weeks.

The simplest plan for your situation and for the benefit of entomology would probably be to offer the collection to Dr. J.E. Gray for the British Museum, with the condition that a complete set is prepared for you. If the collection is valuable at all, I believe he would be pleased to do this. Whether it's worth creating a third set would depend on the collection's value. I don't imagine you expect the insects to be named, as that would be quite a significant task. If you're not on board with this idea, I think it's likely that Mr. Waterhouse would be willing to prepare a series for you while keeping duplicates for himself; however, I'm just speculating. You could trust Mr. Waterhouse completely, though, sadly, that can't be said for all entomologists. If you’re considering either option, I’m sure Sir Charles Lyell could easily speak with the gentlemen and set it up; if not, I can do it the next time I’m in town, though that won’t be for another three or four weeks.

With respect to giving your children a taste for Natural History, I will venture one remark—viz., that giving them specimens in my opinion would tend to destroy such taste. Youngsters must be themselves collectors to acquire a taste; and if I had a collection of English lepidoptera, I would be systematically most miserly, and not give my boys half a dozen butterflies in the year. Your eldest has the brow of an observer, if there be the least truth in phrenology. We are all better, but we have been of late a poor household.

Regarding giving your kids an interest in Natural History, I’ll make one comment—namely, that sharing specimens might actually ruin that interest. Kids need to be collectors themselves to really develop a passion for it; if I had a collection of English butterflies, I would be quite stingy and only give my boys a few butterflies each year. Your oldest has the look of an observer, if there’s any truth to phrenology. We’re all doing better, but lately, we've been a bit strapped for cash.

LETTER 43. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1855}.

I should have less scruple in troubling you if I had any confidence what my work would turn out. Sometimes I think it will be good, at other times I really feel as much ashamed of myself as the author of the "Vestiges" ought to be of himself. I know well that your kindness and friendship would make you do a great deal for me, but that is no reason that I should be unreasonable. I cannot and ought not to forget that all your time is employed in work certain to be valuable. It is superfluous in me to say that I enjoy exceedingly writing to you, and that your answers are of the greatest possible service to me. I return with many thanks the proof on Aquilegia (43/1. This seems to refer to the discussion on the genus Aquilegia in Hooker and Thomson's "Flora Indica," 1855, Volume I., Systematic Part, page 44. The authors' conclusion is that "all the European and many of the Siberian forms generally recognised belong to one very variable species." With regard to cirripedes, Mr. Darwin spoke of "certain just perceptible differences which blend together and constitute varieties and not species" ("Life and Letters," I., page 379).): it has interested me much. It is exactly like my barnacles; but for my particular purpose, most unfortunately, both Kolreuter and Gartner have worked chiefly on A. vulgaris and canadensis and atro-purpurea, and these are just the species that you seem not to have studied. N.B. Why do you not let me buy the Indian Flora? You are too magnificent.

I wouldn't hesitate to bother you if I had any confidence in how my work would turn out. Sometimes I think it will be good, but at other times, I feel just as ashamed of myself as the author of "Vestiges" should feel. I know your kindness and friendship would make you do a lot for me, but that doesn't mean I should be unreasonable. I can't and shouldn't forget that all your time is spent on work that's definitely valuable. It's unnecessary for me to say that I really enjoy writing to you and that your responses are incredibly helpful to me. I’m sending back many thanks for the proof on Aquilegia: it has intrigued me a lot. It's just like my barnacles; but unfortunately, for my specific purpose, both Kolreuter and Gartner mostly focused on A. vulgaris, canadensis, and atro-purpurea, which are exactly the species you seem not to have studied. N.B. Why don’t you let me buy the Indian Flora? You're being too generous.

Now for a short ride on my chief (at present) hobbyhorse, viz. aberrant genera. What you say under your remarks on Lepidodendron seems just the case that I want, to give some sort of evidence of what we both believe in, viz. how groups came to be anomalous or aberrant; and I think some sort of proof is required, for I do not believe very many naturalists would at all admit our view.

Now for a quick dive into my main current interest, which is unusual groups. What you mentioned in your comments about Lepidodendron seems to be exactly what I need to provide some evidence for what we both believe: how certain groups became unusual or aberrant. I think we need some proof for this, as I don’t think many naturalists would agree with our perspective.

Thank you for the caution on large anomalous genera first catching attention. I do not quite agree with your "grave objection to the whole process," which is "that if you multiply the anomalous species by 100, and divide the normal by the same, you will then reverse the names..." For, to take an example, Ornithorhynchus and Echidna would not be less aberrant if each had a dozen (I do not say 100, because we have no such cases in the animal kingdom) species instead of one. What would really make these two genera less anomalous would be the creation of many genera and sub-families round and radiating from them on all sides. Thus if Australia were destroyed, Didelphys in S. America would be wonderfully anomalous (this is your case with Proteaceae), whereas now there are so many genera and little sub-families of Marsupiata that the group cannot be called aberrant or anomalous. Sagitta (and the earwig) is one of the most anomalous animals in the world, and not a bit the less because there are a dozen species. Now, my point (which, I think is a slightly new point of view) is, if it is extinction which has made the genus anomalous, as a general rule the same causes of extinction would allow the existence of only a few species in such genera. Whenever we meet (which will be on the 23rd {at the} Club) I shall much like to hear whether this strikes you as sound. I feel all the time on the borders of a circle of truism. Of course I could not think of such a request, but you might possibly:—if Bentham does not think the whole subject rubbish, ask him some time to pick out the dozen most anomalous genera in the Leguminosae, or any great order of which there is a monograph by which I could calculate the ordinary percentage of species to genera. I am the more anxious, as the more I enquire, the fewer are the cases in which it can be done. It cannot be done in birds, or, I fear, in mammifers. I doubt much whether in any other class of insects {other than Curculionidae}.

Thank you for the warning about large unusual genera first getting attention. I don’t completely agree with your “serious objection to the whole process,” which is that if you multiply the unusual species by 100 and divide the normal by the same number, you’ll just end up reversing the names… For example, Ornithorhynchus and Echidna wouldn’t be any less unusual if each had a dozen (I’m not saying 100, since we don’t have such cases in the animal kingdom) species instead of just one. What would really make these two genera less unusual is the creation of many genera and sub-families surrounding them on all sides. So, if Australia were wiped out, Didelphys in South America would be extremely unusual (this is your case with Proteaceae), while now there are so many genera and small sub-families of Marsupiata that the group can’t be called unusual or aberrant. Sagitta (and the earwig) is one of the most unusual animals in the world, and it wouldn't be any less so because there are a dozen species. Now, my point (which I think presents a slightly new perspective) is that if extinction has made the genus unusual, as a general rule, the same causes of extinction would only allow a few species to exist in such genera. Whenever we meet (which will be on the 23rd at the Club), I’d really like to hear if this makes sense to you. I feel like I’m always on the edge of a circle of common sense. Of course, I couldn’t possibly ask for such a favor, but you might:—if Bentham doesn’t think the whole topic is nonsense, maybe you could ask him sometime to pick out the dozen most unusual genera in the Leguminosae or any large order for which there’s a monograph, so I could calculate the average percentage of species to genera. I’m especially eager because the more I investigate, the fewer cases there seem to be where this can be done. It can’t be done with birds, or, I fear, with mammals. I seriously doubt whether it can be done with any other class of insects (other than Curculionidae).

I saw your nice notice of poor Forbes in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and I see in the "Athenaeum" a notice of meeting on last Saturday of his friends. Of course I shall wish to subscribe as soon as possible to any memorial...

I saw your nice notice about poor Forbes in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and I saw in the "Athenaeum" a notice about a meeting held last Saturday with his friends. Of course, I want to contribute to any memorial as soon as I can...

I have just been testing practically what disuse does in reducing parts. I have made {skeletons} of wild and tame duck (oh the smell of well-boiled, high duck!), and I find the tame duck ought, according to scale of wild prototype, to have its two wings 360 grains in weight; but it has only 317, or 43 grains too little, or 1/7 of {its} own two wings too little in weight. This seems rather interesting to me. (43/2. On the conclusions drawn from these researches, see Mr. Platt Ball, "The Effects of Use and Disuse" (Nature Series), 1890, page 55. With regard to his pigeons, Darwin wrote, in November 1855: "I love them to that extent that I cannot bear to kill and skeletonise them.")

I just tested what happens to body parts when they aren't used. I created skeletons of wild and domestic ducks (oh, the smell of well-cooked, rich duck!), and I found that the domestic duck should have two wings weighing 360 grains based on the wild counterpart, but it only has 317 grains—so it's 43 grains lighter, or about 1/7 of its own wing weight too light. I find this quite interesting. (43/2. For the conclusions from these studies, see Mr. Platt Ball, "The Effects of Use and Disuse" (Nature Series), 1890, page 55. About his pigeons, Darwin wrote in November 1855: "I love them so much that I can't bear to kill and skeletonize them.")

P.S.—I do not know whether you will think this worth reading over. I have worked it out since writing my letter, and tabulate the whole.

P.S.—I'm not sure if you'll find this worth reading again. I've organized everything since writing my letter and put it into a table.

21 orders with 1 genus, having 7.95 species (or 4.6?).

29 orders with 2 genera, having 15.05 species on an average.

29 orders with 2 genera, averaging 15.05 species each.

23 orders each with 3 genera, and these genera include on an average 8.2 species.

23 orders, each containing 3 genera, and these genera include an average of 8.2 species.

20 orders each with 4 genera, and these genera include on an average 12.2 species.

20 orders, each containing 4 genera, and these genera include an average of 12.2 species.

27 orders each with above 50 genera (altogether 4716 genera), and these genera on an average have 9.97 species.

27 orders, each containing over 50 genera (totaling 4716 genera), and these genera have an average of 9.97 species.

From this I conclude, whether there be many or few genera in an order, the number of species in a genus is not much affected; but perhaps when {there is} only one genus in an order it will be affected, and this will depend whether the {genus} Erythroxylon be made a family of.

From this, I conclude that whether there are many or few genera in an order, the number of species in a genus isn't significantly impacted. However, when there is only one genus in an order, it may be affected, and this will depend on whether the genus Erythroxylon is classified as a family.

LETTER 44. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 8th {1856}.

I have been particularly glad to get your splendid eloge of Lindley. His name had been lately passing through my head, and I had hoped that Miers would have proposed him for the Royal medal. I most entirely agree that the Copley (44/1. The late Professor Lindley never attained the honour of the Copley medal. The Royal medal was awarded to him in 1857.) is more appropriate, and I daresay he would not have valued the Royal. From skimming through many botanical books, and from often consulting the "Vegetable Kingdom," I had (ignorant as I am) formed the highest opinion of his claims as a botanist. If Sharpey will stick up strong for him, we should have some chance; but the natural sciences are but feebly represented in the Council. Sir P. Egerton, I daresay, would be strong for him. You know Bell is out. Now, my only doubt is, and I hope that you will consider this, that the natural sciences being weak on the Council, and (I fancy) the most powerful man in the Council, Col. S{abine}, being strong against Lindley, whether we should have any chance of succeeding. It would be so easy to name some eminent man whose name would be well-known to all the physicists. Would Lindley hear of and dislike being proposed for the Copley and not succeeding? Would it not be better on this view to propose him for the Royal? Do think of this. Moreover, if Lindley is not proposed for the Royal, I fear both Royal medals would go {to} physicists; for I, for one, should not like to propose another zoologist, though Hancock would be a very good man, and I fancy there would be a feeling against medals to two botanists. But for whatever Lindley is proposed, I will do my best. We will talk this over here.

I’ve been really pleased to receive your amazing praise for Lindley. His name had been on my mind lately, and I was hoping Miers would have nominated him for the Royal medal. I completely agree that the Copley is more fitting, and I doubt he would have cared much for the Royal. From browsing through various botanical books and frequently referencing the "Vegetable Kingdom," I’ve formed a very high opinion of his credentials as a botanist, despite my ignorance. If Sharpey advocates strongly for him, we might have a chance; however, the natural sciences are not well represented on the Council. I’m sure Sir P. Egerton would support him. You know Bell is out now. My only concern, which I hope you'll think about, is that since the natural sciences have weak backing on the Council, and (I believe) the strongest member, Col. S{abine}, is against Lindley, I wonder if we stand any chance of success. It would be so easy to nominate a well-known figure familiar to all physicists. Would Lindley be upset if he was proposed for the Copley and didn’t succeed? Would it be better to propose him for the Royal instead? Please consider this. Additionally, if Lindley is not nominated for the Royal, I worry both Royal medals could go to physicists; personally, I wouldn’t want to nominate another zoologist, even though Hancock would be a great candidate, and I think there might be resistance to awarding medals to two botanists. Regardless of what happens, I’ll do my best for Lindley. Let’s discuss this further here.

LETTER 45. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 9th {1856}.

...With respect to Huxley, I was on the point of speaking to Crawford and Strezlecki (who will be on Committee of the Athenaeum) when I bethought me of how Owen would look and what he would say. Cannot you fancy him, with slow and gentle voice, asking "Will Mr. Crawford tell me what Mr. Huxley has done, deserving this honour; I only know that he differs from, and disputes the authority of Cuvier, Ehrenberg, and Agassiz as of no weight at all." And when I began to tell Mr. Crawford what to say, I was puzzled, and could refer him only to some excellent papers in the "Phil. Trans." for which the medal had been awarded. But I doubt, with an opposing faction, whether this would be considered enough, for I believe real scientific merit is not thought enough, without the person is generally well known. Now I want to hear what you deliberately think on this head: it would be bad to get him proposed and then rejected; and Owen is very powerful.

...Regarding Huxley, I was just about to talk to Crawford and Strezlecki (who will be on the Committee of the Athenaeum) when I considered how Owen would react and what he would say. Can’t you picture him, with his slow and gentle voice, asking, "Will Mr. Crawford explain what Mr. Huxley has done to deserve this honor? All I know is that he disagrees with and challenges the authority of Cuvier, Ehrenberg, and Agassiz as if their opinions carry no weight." As I started to explain to Mr. Crawford what to say, I got confused and could only point him to some excellent papers in the “Phil. Trans.” for which the medal was awarded. However, I wonder if this would be seen as sufficient by the opposing faction, since I believe real scientific merit isn’t considered enough unless the person is also widely recognized. Now, I want to know your honest thoughts on this matter: it would be unfortunate to get him nominated and then turned down; plus, Owen is quite influential.

LETTER 46. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1856}.

I have got the Lectures, and have read them. (46/1. The reference is presumably to the Royal Institution Lectures given in 1854-56. Those which we have seen—namely, those reprinted in the "Scientific Memoirs," Volume I.—"On the Common Plan of Animal Form," page 281; "On certain Zoological Arguments, etc." page 300; "On Natural History as Knowledge, Discipline, and Power," page 305, do not seem to us to contain anything likely to offend; but Falconer's attack in the "Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist." June 1856, on the last-named lecture, shows strong feeling. A reply by Mr. Huxley appeared in the July number of the same Journal. The most heretical discussion from a modern standpoint is at page 311, where he asks how it is conceivable that the bright colours of butterflies and shells or the elegant forms of Foraminifera can possibly be of service to their possessors; and it is this which especially struck Darwin, judging by the pencil notes on his copy of the Lecture.) Though I believe, as far as my knowledge goes, that Huxley is right, yet I think his tone very much too vehement, and I have ventured to say so in a note to Huxley. I had not thought of these lectures in relation to the Athenaeum (46/2. Mr. Huxley was in 1858 elected to the Athenaeum Club under Rule 2, which provides for the annual election of "a certain number of persons of distinguished eminence in science, literature, or the arts, or for public services."), but I am inclined quite to agree with you, and that we had better pause before anything is said...(N.B. I found Falconer very indignant at the manner in which Huxley treated Cuvier in his Royal Institution lectures; and I have gently told Huxley so.) I think we had better do nothing: to try in earnest to get a great naturalist into the Athenaeum and fail, is far worse than doing nothing.

I’ve got the Lectures and have read them. (46/1. This likely refers to the Royal Institution Lectures given between 1854-56. The ones we've seen—specifically, those reprinted in the "Scientific Memoirs," Volume I.—"On the Common Plan of Animal Form," page 281; "On certain Zoological Arguments, etc.," page 300; "On Natural History as Knowledge, Discipline, and Power," page 305, don’t seem to contain anything that would offend; however, Falconer's critique in the "Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist." from June 1856 regarding the last lecture shows strong feelings. A response by Mr. Huxley was published in the July issue of the same Journal. The most controversial discussion from a modern perspective appears on page 311, where he questions how the vibrant colors of butterflies and shells or the elegant shapes of Foraminifera could possibly benefit them; this particularly caught Darwin's attention, judging by his pencil notes in his copy of the Lecture.) Although I believe Huxley is right, based on my knowledge, I find his tone to be excessively intense, and I've taken the liberty to mention this in a note to Huxley. I hadn’t connected these lectures to the Athenaeum (46/2. Mr. Huxley was elected to the Athenaeum Club in 1858 under Rule 2, which allows for the annual election of "a certain number of persons of distinguished eminence in science, literature, or the arts, or for public services.”), but I’m inclined to agree with you that we should hold off before saying anything...(N.B. I found Falconer quite upset about the way Huxley handled Cuvier in his Royal Institution lectures, and I’ve gently informed Huxley of this.) I think it’s best we don’t take any action: seriously trying to get a great naturalist into the Athenaeum and failing is much worse than doing nothing at all.

How strange, funny, and disgraceful that nearly all (Faraday and Sir J. Herschel at least exceptions) our great men are in quarrels in couplets; it never struck me before...

How strange, funny, and embarrassing that almost all of our great figures (with Faraday and Sir J. Herschel being the exceptions) are involved in disputes in pairs; I never realized it before...

LETTER 47. C. LYELL TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(47/1. In the "Life and Letters," II., page 72, is given a letter (June 16th, 1856) to Lyell, in which Darwin exhales his indignation over the "extensionists" who created continents ad libitum to suit the convenience of their theories. On page 74 a fuller statement of his views is given in a letter dated June 25th. We have not seen Lyell's reply to this, but his reply to Darwin's letter of June 16th is extant, and is here printed for the first time.)

(47/1. In "Life and Letters," II., page 72, there's a letter (June 16th, 1856) to Lyell, where Darwin expresses his anger towards the "extensionists" who created continents as they pleased to fit their theories. On page 74, a more detailed account of his views appears in a letter dated June 25th. We haven't seen Lyell's response to this, but his reply to Darwin's letter from June 16th is available and is being published here for the first time.)

53, Harley Street, London, June 17th, 1856.

I wonder you did not also mention D. Sharpe's paper (47/2. "On the Last Elevation of the Alps, etc." ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XII., 1856, page 102.), just published, by which the Alps were submerged as far as 9,000 feet of their present elevation above the sea in the Glacial period and then since uplifted again. Without admitting this, you would probably convey the alpine boulders to the Jura by marine currents, and if so, make the Alps and Jura islands in the glacial sea. And would not the Glacial theory, as now very generally understood, immerse as much of Europe as I did in my original map of Europe, when I simply expressed all the area which at some time or other had been under water since the commencement of the Eocene period? I almost suspect the glacial submergence would exceed it.

I wonder why you didn’t also mention D. Sharpe's paper (47/2. "On the Last Elevation of the Alps, etc." ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XII., 1856, page 102.), which was just published. It states that during the Glacial period, the Alps were submerged by as much as 9,000 feet of their current elevation above sea level and have since been uplifted again. If we don't accept this, you would likely suggest that the alpine boulders were transported to the Jura by marine currents, which would mean that the Alps and Jura were islands in the glacial sea. Doesn’t the Glacial theory, as it is widely understood now, imply that much of Europe would be submerged like I depicted in my original map of Europe? That map simply showed all the areas that have been underwater at some point since the start of the Eocene period. I almost suspect that the glacial submergence would be even greater.

But would not this be a measure of the movement in every other area, northern (arctic), antarctic, or tropical, during an equal period—oceanic or continental? For the conversion of sea into land would always equal the turning of much land into sea.

But wouldn’t this be a way to measure the changes in every other area—northern (arctic), antarctic, or tropical—over the same period, whether oceanic or continental? Because the process of turning sea into land would always balance out with turning a lot of land into sea.

But all this would be done in a fraction of the Pliocene period; the Glacial shells are barely 1 per cent. extinct species. Multiply this by the older Pliocene and Miocene epochs.

But all of this would happen in just a small part of the Pliocene period; the Glacial shells only represent about 1 percent of extinct species. Think about this in relation to the older Pliocene and Miocene epochs.

You also forget an author who, by means of atolls, contrived to submerge archipelagoes (or continents?), the mountains of which must originally have differed from each other in height 8,000 (or 10,000?) feet, so that they all just rose to the surface at one level, or their sites are marked by buoys of coral. I could never feel sure whether he meant this tremendous catastrophe, all brought about by what Sedgwick called "Lyell's niggling operations," to have been effected during the era of existing species of corals. Perhaps you can tell me, for I am really curious to know...(47/3. The author referred to is of course Darwin.)

You also forget an author who, through atolls, managed to submerge archipelagos (or continents?), the mountains of which must have originally differed in height by 8,000 (or 10,000?) feet, so that they all just broke the surface at one level, or their locations are indicated by coral buoys. I could never be sure if he meant this massive disaster, all caused by what Sedgwick referred to as "Lyell's niggling operations," to have occurred during the time of the existing coral species. Maybe you can tell me, because I’m really curious to know...(47/3. The author referred to is of course Darwin.)

Now, although there is nothing in my works to warrant the building up of continents in the Atlantic and Pacific even since the Eocene period, yet, as some of the rocks in the central Alps are in part Eocene, I begin to think that all continents and oceans may be chiefly, if not all, post-Eocene, and Dana's "Atlantic Ocean" of the Lower Silurian is childish (see the Anniversary Address, 1856). (47/4. Probably Dana's Anniversary Address to the "American Association for the Advancement of Science," published in the "Proceedings" 1856.) But how far you are at liberty to call up continents from "the vasty deep" as often as you want to convey a Helix from the United States to Europe in Miocene or Pliocene periods is a question; for the ocean is getting deeper of late, and Haughton says the mean depth is eleven miles! by his late paper on tides. (47/5. "On the Depth of the Sea deducible from Tidal Observations" ("Proc. Irish Acad." Volume VI., page 354, 1853-54).) I shall be surprised if this turns out true by soundings.

Now, even though there's nothing in my work that justifies the creation of continents in the Atlantic and Pacific since the Eocene period, I’m starting to think that all continents and oceans might mainly be, if not entirely, post-Eocene. Dana’s "Atlantic Ocean" from the Lower Silurian seems a bit naive (see the Anniversary Address, 1856). (47/4. Probably Dana's Anniversary Address to the "American Association for the Advancement of Science," published in the "Proceedings" 1856.) But how much freedom you have to summon continents from "the vasty deep" each time you want to show a Helix traveling from the United States to Europe during the Miocene or Pliocene periods is debatable; the ocean has been getting deeper lately, and Haughton claims the average depth is eleven miles according to his recent paper on tides. (47/5. "On the Depth of the Sea deducible from Tidal Observations" ("Proc. Irish Acad." Volume VI., page 354, 1853-54).) I would be surprised if this turns out to be true based on soundings.

I thought your mind was expanding so much in regard to time that you would have been going ahead in regard to the possibility of mountain-chains being created in a fraction of the period required to convert a swan into a goose, or vice versa. Nine feet did the Rimutaka chain of New Zealand gain in height in January, 1855, and a great earthquake has occurred in New Zealand every seven years for half a century nearly. The "Washingtonia" (Californian conifer) (47/6. Washingtonia, or Wellingtonia, better known as Sequoia. Asa Gray, writing in 1872, states his belief that "no Sequoia now alive can sensibly antedate the Christian era" ("Scientific Papers," II., page 144).) lately exhibited was four thousand years old, so that one individual might see a chain of hills rise, and rise with it, much {more} a species—and those islands which J. Hooker describes as covered with New Zealand plants three hundred (?) miles to the N.E. (?) of New Zealand may have been separated from the mainland two or three or four generations of Washingtonia ago.

I thought your understanding of time was growing so much that you would have figured out that mountain ranges could be formed in a fraction of the time it takes to turn a swan into a goose, or the other way around. The Rimutaka range in New Zealand gained nine feet in height in January 1855, and there’s been a significant earthquake in New Zealand every seven years for almost fifty years. The "Washingtonia" (Californian conifer) (47/6. Washingtonia, or Wellingtonia, better known as Sequoia. Asa Gray, writing in 1872, states his belief that "no Sequoia now alive can sensibly antedate the Christian era" ("Scientific Papers," II., page 144).) that was recently displayed was four thousand years old, meaning one individual could witness a range of hills rise, and even more so a species—and those islands that J. Hooker describes as being covered with New Zealand plants three hundred (?) miles to the N.E. (?) of New Zealand may have separated from the mainland two, three, or four generations of Washingtonia ago.

If the identity of the land-shells of all the hundreds of British Isles be owing to their having been united since the Glacial period, and the discordance, almost total, of the shells of Porto Santo and Madeira be owing to their having been separated {during} all the newer and possibly older Pliocene periods, then it gives us a conception of time which will aid you much in your conversion of species, if immensity of time will do all you require; for the Glacial period is thus shown, as we might have anticipated, to be contemptible in duration or in distance from us, as compared to the older Pliocene, let alone the Miocene, when our contemporary species were, though in a minority, already beginning to flourish.

If the identity of the land snails across all the hundreds of British Isles comes from their being connected since the Glacial period, and the nearly complete difference in the shells of Porto Santo and Madeira results from their separation during all the newer and possibly older Pliocene periods, then this gives us a sense of time that will help you a lot in your understanding of species, if a vast amount of time is what you need; because the Glacial period is shown, as we might have expected, to be minor in duration or distance from us, especially when compared to the older Pliocene, not to mention the Miocene, when our present species were, though in smaller numbers, already starting to thrive.

The littoral shells, according to MacAndrew, imply that Madeira and the Canaries were once joined to the mainland of Europe or Africa, but that those isles were disjoined so long ago that most of the species came in since. In short, the marine shells tell the same story as the land shells. Why do the plants of Porto Santo and Madeira agree so nearly? And why do the shells which are the same as European or African species remain quite unaltered, like the Crag species, which returned unchanged to the British seas after being expelled from them by glacial cold, when two millions (?) of years had elapsed, and after such migration to milder seas? Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.

The coastal shells, according to MacAndrew, suggest that Madeira and the Canaries were once connected to the mainland of Europe or Africa, but that these islands separated long ago, so most of the species arrived after that. In short, the marine shells tell the same story as the land shells. Why do the plants of Porto Santo and Madeira resemble each other so closely? And why do the shells that are identical to European or African species remain completely unchanged, like the Crag species, which returned unaltered to the British seas after being pushed out by glacial cold, even after two million (?) years and migrating to warmer seas? Please explain all this in your next letter.

LETTER 48. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 5th {1856}.

I write this morning in great tribulation about Tristan d'Acunha. (48/1. See "Flora Antarctica," page 216. Though Tristan d'Acunha is "only 1,000 miles distant from the Cape of Good Hope, and 3,000 from the Strait of Magalhaens, the botany of this island is far more intimately allied to that of Fuegia than Africa.") The more I reflect on your Antarctic flora the more I am astounded. You give all the facts so clearly and fully, that it is impossible to help speculating on the subject; but it drives me to despair, for I cannot gulp down your continent; and not being able to do so gives, in my eyes, the multiple creationists an awful triumph. It is a wondrous case, and how strange that A. De Candolle should have ignored it; which he certainly has, as it seems to me. I wrote Lyell a long geological letter (48/2. "Life and Letters," II., page 74.) about continents, and I have had a very long and interesting answer; but I cannot in the least gather his opinion about all your continental extensionists; and I have written again beseeching a verdict. (48/3. In the tenth edition of the "Principles," 1872, Lyell added a chapter (Chapter XLI., page 406) on insular floras and faunas in relation to the origin of species; he here (page 410) gives his reasons against Forbes as an extensionist.) I asked him to send to you my letter, for as it was well copied it would not be troublesome to read; but whether worth reading I really do not know; I have given in it the reasons which make me strongly opposed to continental extensions.

I’m writing this morning with great difficulty about Tristan d'Acunha. (48/1. See "Flora Antarctica," page 216. Even though Tristan d'Acunha is "only 1,000 miles away from the Cape of Good Hope, and 3,000 from the Strait of Magalhaens, the botany of this island is much more closely connected to that of Fuegia than Africa.") The more I think about your Antarctic flora, the more amazed I become. You present all the facts so clearly and completely that it’s impossible not to speculate on the topic; but it sends me into despair because I can’t fully understand your continent, and not being able to do so gives the multiple creationists a terrible victory, in my view. It’s a remarkable situation, and how odd that A. De Candolle seems to have overlooked it; which he clearly has, in my opinion. I wrote Lyell a long geological letter (48/2. "Life and Letters," II., page 74.) about continents, and I received a very long and interesting response; but I can’t quite figure out his opinion on all your continental expansionists, so I wrote again pleading for a clear answer. (48/3. In the tenth edition of the "Principles," 1872, Lyell added a chapter (Chapter XLI., page 406) on insular floras and faunas in relation to the origin of species; here (page 410) he provides his reasons against Forbes as an expansionist.) I asked him to forward my letter to you, as it was well copied and shouldn't be too hard to read; but whether it’s worth reading, I honestly don’t know; I included in it the reasons why I am strongly against continental expansions.

I was very glad to get your note some days ago: I wish you would think it worth while, as you intend to have the Laburnum case translated, to write to "Wien" (that unknown place) (48/4. There is a tradition that Darwin once asked Hooker where "this place Wien is, where they publish so many books."), and find out how the Laburnum has been behaving: it really ought to be known.

I was really happy to receive your note a few days ago. I hope you consider it worthwhile, since you're planning to get the Laburnum case translated, to write to "Wien" (that unknown place) (48/4. There's a story that Darwin once asked Hooker where "this place Wien is, where they publish so many books.”), and find out how the Laburnum has been doing; it really needs to be known.

The Entada is a beast. (48/5. The large seeds of Entada scandens are occasionally floated across the Atlantic and cast on the shores of Europe.); I have never differed from you about the growth of a plant in a new island being a FAR harder trial than transportal, though certainly that seems hard enough. Indeed I suspect I go even further than you in this respect; but it is too long a story.

The Entada is a beast. (48/5. The large seeds of Entada scandens sometimes drift across the Atlantic and wash up on the shores of Europe.); I have never disagreed with you about the fact that growing a plant on a new island is a MUCH tougher challenge than transporting it, though that definitely seems tough enough. In fact, I think I go even further than you on this point; but that's a long story.

Thank you for the Aristolochia and Viscum cases: what species were they? I ask, because oddly these two very genera I have seen advanced as instances (I forget at present by whom, but by good men) in which the agency of insects was absolutely necessary for impregnation. In our British dioecious Viscum I suppose it must be necessary. Was there anything to show that the stigma was ready for pollen in these two cases? for it seems that there are many cases in which pollen is shed long before the stigma is ready. As in our Viscum, insects carry, sufficiently regularly for impregnation, pollen from flower to flower, I should think that there must be occasional crosses even in an hermaphrodite Viscum. I have never heard of bees and butterflies, only moths, producing fertile eggs without copulation.

Thank you for the Aristolochia and Viscum cases: what species were they? I ask because, interestingly, these two specific genera have been mentioned as examples (I can’t recall by whom, but by reputable sources) where the role of insects is absolutely essential for fertilization. In our British dioecious Viscum, I assume it must be necessary. Was there any indication that the stigma was ready for pollen in these two cases? It seems that there are many instances where pollen is released long before the stigma is prepared. Just like in our Viscum, insects regularly transfer pollen from flower to flower, so I would think there must be some occasional hybridization even in a hermaphrodite Viscum. I’ve only heard about moths, not bees and butterflies, producing fertile eggs without mating.

With respect to the Ray Society, I profited so enormously by its publishing my Cirrepedia, that I cannot quite agree with you on confining it to translations; I know not how else I could possibly have published.

With regard to the Ray Society, I benefited so much from it publishing my Cirrepedia that I can’t completely agree with you about limiting it to translations; I don’t know how else I could have possibly published it.

I have just sent in my name for 20 pounds to the Linnaean Society, but I must confess I have done it with heavy groans, whereas I daresay you gave your 20 pounds like a light-hearted gentleman...

I just sent my name along with 20 pounds to the Linnaean Society, but I have to admit I did it with a lot of reluctance, while I’m sure you gave your 20 pounds like a cheerful gentleman.

P.S. Wollaston speaks strongly about the intermediate grade between two varieties in insects and mollusca being often rarer than the two varieties themselves. This is obviously very important for me, and not easy to explain. I believe I have had cases from you. But, if you believe in this, I wish you would give me a sentence to quote from you on this head. There must, I think, be a good deal of truth in it; otherwise there could hardly be nearly distinct varieties under any species, for we should have instead a blending series, as in brambles and willows.

P.S. Wollaston strongly emphasizes that the intermediate grade between two varieties in insects and mollusks is often rarer than the two varieties themselves. This is obviously very important to me and not easy to explain. I believe I've come across cases from you. However, if you agree with this, I would appreciate a sentence to quote from you on this topic. I think there must be a lot of truth in it; otherwise, we wouldn't find nearly distinct varieties within any species, and instead, we would have a blending series, like with brambles and willows.

LETTER 49. TO J.D. HOOKER. July 13th, 1856.

What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature! With respect to crossing, from one sentence in your letter I think you misunderstand me. I am very far from believing in hybrids: only in crossing of the same species or of close varieties. These two or three last days I have been observing wheat, and have convinced myself that L. Deslongchamps is in error about impregnation taking place in closed flowers; i.e., of course, I can judge only from external appearances. By the way, R. Brown once told me that the use of the brush on stigma of grasses was unknown. Do you know its use?...

What a book a devil's advocate could write about the clumsy, wasteful, careless, low, and horribly cruel actions of nature! Regarding crossing, I think you misunderstood me from one line in your letter. I'm not at all convinced about hybrids; I only believe in crossing within the same species or closely related varieties. Over the last few days, I've been studying wheat and have come to the conclusion that L. Deslongchamps is mistaken about fertilization occurring in closed flowers; I can, of course, only assess this based on what I see externally. By the way, R. Brown once mentioned that the use of a brush on the stigma of grasses was not known. Do you know what it's used for?

You say most truly about multiple creations and my notions. If any one case could be proved, I should be smashed; but as I am writing my book, I try to take as much pains as possible to give the strongest cases opposed to me, and often such conjectures as occur to me. I have been working your books as the richest (and vilest) mine against me; and what hard work I have had to get up your New Zealand Flora! As I have to quote you so often, I should like to refer to Muller's case of the Australian Alps. Where is it published? Is it a book? A correct reference would be enough for me, though it is wrong even to quote without looking oneself. I should like to see very much Forbes's sheets, which you refer to; but I must confess (I hardly know why) I have got rather to mistrust poor dear Forbes.

You’re absolutely right about the multiple creations and my ideas. If I could prove even one case, I’d be in real trouble; but as I write my book, I try to carefully present the strongest arguments against me, along with various thoughts that come to mind. I’ve been digging into your books like they’re the richest (and most awful) mine I could find against me; and it’s been quite the challenge to work through your New Zealand Flora! Since I need to quote you often, I’d like to reference Muller’s case of the Australian Alps. Where can I find it? Is it in a book? A proper reference would be enough for me, even though it’s not ideal to quote without checking myself. I’d really like to see Forbes’s sheets that you mentioned; but I must admit (though I'm not sure why) I’ve started to be a bit skeptical of poor dear Forbes.

There is wonderful ill logic in his famous and admirable memoir on distribution, as it appears to me, now that I have got it up so as to give the heads in a page. Depend on it, my saying is a true one—viz. that a compiler is a great man, and an original man a commonplace man. Any fool can generalise and speculate; but oh, my heavens, to get up at second hand a New Zealand Flora, that is work...

There’s a fascinating flawed reasoning in his well-known and impressive memoir on distribution, as I see it now that I've organized it to summarize the main points on a page. Trust me, my statement is accurate—that a compiler is a significant person, while an original thinker is often just average. Any idiot can generalize and theorize; but oh, my goodness, compiling a New Zealand Flora from secondary sources, that’s real work...

And now I am going to beg almost as great a favour as a man can beg of another: and I ask some five or six weeks before I want the favour done, that it may appear less horrid. It is to read, but well copied out, my pages (about forty!!) on Alpine floras and faunas, Arctic and Antarctic floras and faunas, and the supposed cold mundane period. It would be really an enormous advantage to me, as I am sure otherwise to make botanical blunders. I would specify the few points on which I most want your advice. But it is quite likely that you may object on the ground that you might be publishing before me (I hope to publish in a year at furthest), so that it would hamper and bother you; and secondly you may object to the loss of time, for I daresay it would take an hour and a half to read. It certainly would be of immense advantage to me; but of course you must not think of doing it if it would interfere with your own work.

And now I'm going to ask for a pretty big favor, one person can ask of another. I'm asking about five or six weeks in advance so it doesn’t seem too overwhelming. I need someone to read my pages (about forty!) on Alpine, Arctic, and Antarctic plants and animals, as well as the supposed cold, dark period. This would really help me out, as I'm likely to make some botanical mistakes otherwise. I can point out the few areas where I'd most like your input. However, you might worry about possibly publishing before me (I plan to publish at the latest in a year), which could complicate things for you. And you might also feel it’s a waste of time since reading it would probably take about an hour and a half. It would definitely be a huge help for me, but of course, you shouldn't feel pressured if it interferes with your own work.

I do not consider this request in futuro as breaking my promise to give no more trouble for some time.

I don't see this request moving forward as breaking my promise to not cause any more trouble for a while.

From Lyell's letters, he is coming round at a railway pace on the mutability of species, and authorises me to put some sentences on this head in my preface.

From Lyell's letters, he is quickly changing his views on the mutability of species and has given me permission to include some sentences about it in my preface.

I shall meet Lyell on Wednesday at Lord Stanhope's, and will ask him to forward my letter to you; though, as my arguments have not struck him, they cannot have force, and my head must be crotchety on the subject; but the crotchets keep firmly there. I have given your opinion on continuous land, I see, too strongly.

I will meet Lyell on Wednesday at Lord Stanhope's and will ask him to send my letter to you. However, since my arguments haven't convinced him, they must not be strong, and I must be a bit stubborn about this topic. But those stubborn beliefs stay solid. I realize I've presented your opinion on continuous land too strongly.

LETTER 50. TO S.P. WOODWARD. Down, July 18th {1856}.

Very many thanks for your kindness in writing to me at such length, and I am glad to say for your sake that I do not see that I shall have to beg any further favours. What a range and what a variability in the Cyrena! (50/1. A genus of Lamellibranchs ranging from the Lias to the present day.) Your list of the ranges of the land and fresh-water shells certainly is most striking and curious, and especially as the antiquity of four of them is so clearly shown.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed message. I'm happy to report that I don't think I'll need to ask for any more favors. The variety and diversity in the Cyrena are impressive! Your list of the ranges of land and freshwater shells is truly fascinating, particularly since the ancient history of four of them is so clearly evident.

I have got Harvey's seaside book, and liked it; I was not particularly struck with it, but I will re-read the first and last chapters.

I have Harvey's seaside book, and I liked it; I wasn't particularly impressed with it, but I will re-read the first and last chapters.

I am growing as bad as the worst about species, and hardly have a vestige of belief in the permanence of species left in me; and this confession will make you think very lightly of me, but I cannot help it. Such has become my honest conviction, though the difficulties and arguments against such heresy are certainly most weighty.

I’m becoming just as bad as the worst when it comes to species, and I barely have any belief left in the idea that species are permanent. Admitting this might make you think less of me, but I can’t help it. This has become my genuine conviction, even though the challenges and arguments against this belief are definitely substantial.

LETTER 51. TO C. LYELL. November 10th {1856}.

LETTER 51. TO C. LYELL. November 10, 1856.

I know you like all cases of negative geological evidence being upset. I fancied that I was a most unwilling believer in negative evidence; but yet such negative evidence did seem to me so strong that in my "Fossil Lepadidae" I have stated, giving reasons, that I did not believe there could have existed any sessile cirripedes during the Secondary ages. Now, the other day Bosquet of Maestricht sends me a perfect drawing of a perfect Chthamalus (a recent genus) from the Chalk! (51/1. Chthamalus, a genus of Cirripedia. ("A Monograph on the Sub-class Cirripedia," by Charles Darwin, page 447. London, 1854.) A fossil species of this genus of Upper Cretaceous age was named by Bosquet Chthamalus Darwini. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 284; also Zittel, "Traite de Paleontologie," Traduit par Dr. C. Barrois, Volume II., page 540, figure 748. Paris, 1887.) Indeed, it is stretching a point to make it specifically distinct from our living British species. It is a genus not hitherto found in any Tertiary bed.

I know you love it when all forms of negative geological evidence are challenged. I thought I was a pretty reluctant believer in negative evidence; however, that negative evidence seemed so convincing that in my "Fossil Lepadidae," I stated, with reasons, that I didn’t believe any sessile cirripedes could have existed during the Secondary ages. The other day, Bosquet from Maestricht sent me a perfect drawing of an ideal Chthamalus (a recent genus) from the Chalk! (51/1. Chthamalus, a genus of Cirripedia. ("A Monograph on the Sub-class Cirripedia," by Charles Darwin, page 447. London, 1854.) A fossil species of this genus from the Upper Cretaceous age was named by Bosquet Chthamalus Darwini. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 284; also Zittel, "Traite de Paleontologie," Traduit par Dr. C. Barrois, Volume II., page 540, figure 748. Paris, 1887.) In fact, it’s pushing it a bit to say it’s specifically different from our living British species. It’s a genus that hasn’t been found in any Tertiary bed before.

LETTER 52. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, July 9th, 1857.

I am extremely much obliged to you for having so fully entered on my point. I knew I was on unsafe ground, but it proves far unsafer than I had thought. I had thought that Brulle (52/1. This no doubt refers to A. Brulle's paper in the "Comptes rendus" 1844, of which a translation is given in the "Annals and Mag. of Natural History," 1844, page 484. In speaking of the development of the Articulata, the author says "that the appendages are manifested at an earlier period of the existence of an Articulate animal the more complex its degree of organisation, and vice versa that they make their appearance the later, the fewer the number of transformations which it has to undergo.") had a wider basis for his generalisation, for I made the extract several years ago, and I presume (I state it as some excuse for myself) that I doubted it, for, differently from my general habit, I have not extracted his grounds. It was meeting with Barneoud's paper which made me think there might be truth in the doctrine. (52/2. Apparently Barneoud "On the Organogeny of Irregular Corollas," from the "Comptes rendus," 1847, as given in "Annals and Mag. of Natural History," 1847, page 440. The paper chiefly deals with the fact that in their earliest condition irregular flowers are regular. The view attributed to Barneoud does not seem so definitely given in this paper as in a previous one ("Ann. Sc. Nat." Bot., Tom. VI., page 268.) Your instance of heart and brain of fish seems to me very good. It was a very stupid blunder on my part not thinking of the posterior part of the time of development. I shall, of course, not allude to this subject, which I rather grieve about, as I wished it to be true; but, alas! a scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections—a mere heart of stone.

I'm really grateful to you for diving so deeply into my point. I knew I was on shaky ground, but it turns out to be much shakier than I thought. I had believed that Brulle (52/1. This likely refers to A. Brulle's paper in the "Comptes rendus" 1844, of which a translation appears in the "Annals and Mag. of Natural History," 1844, page 484. In discussing the development of the Articulata, the author mentions that "the appendages appear earlier in the development of an Articulate animal the more complex its organization, and conversely, they appear later the fewer transformations it undergoes.") had a stronger foundation for his generalization because I made that excerpt several years ago, and I assume (I mention this as a kind of excuse for myself) that I doubted it since, unlike my usual practice, I didn't include his reasoning. It was coming across Barneoud's paper that made me think there might be some truth to the theory. (52/2. This refers to Barneoud's "On the Organogeny of Irregular Corollas," from the "Comptes rendus," 1847, as noted in "Annals and Mag. of Natural History," 1847, page 440. The paper mainly addresses how, in their earliest stages, irregular flowers are actually regular. The view attributed to Barneoud doesn't seem as clearly stated in this paper as it does in a previous one ("Ann. Sc. Nat." Bot., Tom. VI., page 268.) Your example of the heart and brain of fish seems very valid to me. It was a foolish mistake on my part not to consider the later stages of development. Of course, I won't bring up this topic again, which I regret, as I wanted it to be true; but unfortunately, a scientist shouldn't have wishes or feelings—just a heart of stone.

There is only one point in your letter which at present I cannot quite follow you in: supposing that Barneoud's (I do not say Brulle's) remarks were true and universal—i.e., that the petals which have to undergo the greatest amount of development and modification begin to change the soonest from the simple and common embryonic form of the petal—if this were a true law, then I cannot but think that it would throw light on Milne Edwards' proposition that the wider apart the classes of animals are, the sooner do they diverge from the common embryonic plan—which common embryonic {plan} may be compared with the similar petals in the early bud, the several petals in one flower being compared to the distinct but similar embryos of the different classes. I much wish that you would so far keep this in mind, that whenever we meet I might hear how far you differ or concur in this. I have always looked at Barneoud's and Brulle's proposition as only in some degree analogous.

There's one point in your letter that I can't quite follow right now: if we assume that Barneoud's (not Brulle's) comments are true and apply universally—that is, the petals that require the most development and change start to evolve from the simple and common embryonic form of the petal earlier—if this were indeed a true principle, then I can't help but think it would support Milne Edwards' claim that the more distinct the groups of animals are, the sooner they diverge from the common embryonic plan. This common embryonic {plan} might be compared to the similar petals in the early bud, with the various petals in one flower likened to the distinct but similar embryos of different classes. I really hope you keep this in mind so that when we meet, I can learn how much you agree or disagree with this. I've always viewed Barneoud's and Brulle's ideas as somewhat analogous.

P.S. I see in my abstract of Milne Edwards' paper, he speaks of "the most perfect and important organs" as being first developed, and I should have thought that this was usually synonymous with the most developed or modified.

P.S. I see in my summary of Milne Edwards' paper, he mentions "the most perfect and important organs" being developed first, and I would have thought that this typically meant the most developed or modified.

LETTER 53. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(53/1. The following letter is chiefly of interest as showing the amount and kind of work required for Darwin's conclusions on "large genera varying," which occupy no more than two or three pages in the "Origin" (Edition I., page 55). Some correspondence on the subject is given in the "Life and Letters," II., pages 102-5.)

(53/1. The following letter is mainly interesting because it shows the amount and type of work that went into Darwin's conclusions about "large genera varying," which only take up two or three pages in the "Origin" (Edition I., page 55). Some correspondence on the topic is included in the "Life and Letters," II., pages 102-5.)

Down, August 22nd {1857}.

Down, August 22, 1857.

Your handwriting always rejoices the cockles of my heart; though you have no reason to be "overwhelmed with shame," as I did not expect to hear.

Your handwriting always warms my heart; even though you have no reason to feel "overwhelmed with shame," since I didn’t expect to hear that.

I write now chiefly to know whether you can tell me how to write to Hermann Schlagenheit (is this spelt right?) (53/2. Schlagintweit.), for I believe he is returned to England, and he has poultry skins for me from W. Elliot of Madras.

I’m writing mainly to see if you can tell me how to contact Hermann Schlagenheit (is that the right spelling?) (53/2. Schlagintweit.), because I think he’s back in England, and he has some poultry skins for me from W. Elliot of Madras.

I am very glad to hear that you have been tabulating some Floras about varieties. Will you just tell me roughly the result? Do you not find it takes much time? I am employing a laboriously careful schoolmaster, who does the tabulating and dividing into two great cohorts, more carefully than I can. This being so, I should be very glad some time to have Koch, Webb's Canaries, and Ledebour, and Grisebach, but I do not know even where Rumelia is. I shall work the British flora with three separate Floras; and I intend dividing the varieties into two classes, as Asa Gray and Henslow give the materials, and, further, A. Gray and H.C. Watson have marked for me the forms, which they consider real species, but yet are very close to others; and it will be curious to compare results. If it will all hold good it is very important for me; for it explains, as I think, all classification, i.e. the quasi-branching and sub-branching of forms, as if from one root, big genera increasing and splitting up, etc., as you will perceive. But then comes in, also, what I call a principle of divergence, which I think I can explain, but which is too long, and perhaps you would not care to hear. As you have been on this subject, you might like to hear what very little is complete (for my schoolmaster has had three weeks' holidays)—only three cases as yet, I see.

I'm really glad to hear that you've been organizing some information on different plant varieties. Can you give me a rough idea of the results? Don’t you find it takes a lot of time? I have a meticulous schoolmaster helping me with the tabulating and sorting into two main groups, doing it much more carefully than I could on my own. With that said, I would really appreciate it if I could get a hold of Koch, Webb's Canaries, Ledebour, and Grisebach, but I’m not even sure where Rumelia is located. I plan to study the British flora using three separate sources; I intend to divide the varieties into two categories based on the information provided by Asa Gray and Henslow, and additionally, A. Gray and H.C. Watson have noted which forms they consider true species, although they're very close to others; it’ll be interesting to compare the results. If it all works out, it’s very important for me because it helps explain, as I see it, the entire classification concept, like the nearly branching and sub-branching of forms, as if they stem from a single root, with large genera growing and diversifying, etc., as you will understand. But then there's also what I refer to as a principle of divergence, which I think I can explain, though it’s a bit lengthy, and you might not be interested in hearing it. Since you’ve been looking into this topic, you might be curious to know what little progress I’ve made (my schoolmaster has had three weeks off)—I’ve only got three cases so far.

   BABINGTON—British Flora.

   593 species in genera of 5 and   593 (odd chance equal) in
   upwards have in a thousand       genera of 3 and downwards have
   species presenting vars.         in a thousand presenting vars.
   134/1000.*                       37/1000.

   (*53/3.  This sentence may be interpreted as follows:  The number of
   species which present varieties are 134 per thousand in genera of 5 species
   and upwards.  The result is obtained from tabulation of 593 species.)

   HOOKER—New Zealand.

   Genera with 4 species and        With 3 species and downwards
   upwards, 150/1000.               114/1000.

   GODRON—Central France.

   With 5 species and upwards       With 3 species and downwards
   160/1000.                        105/1000.

   BABINGTON—British Flora.

   593 species in genera of 5 and 593 (what a coincidence) in
   over a thousand genera of 3 and below have
   species showing variations.         134/1000.*                       37/1000.

   (*53/3. This sentence can be understood as follows: The number of
   species that show varieties is 134 out of every thousand in genera of 5 species
   and above. The result is derived from the tabulation of 593 species.)

   HOOKER—New Zealand.

   Genera with 4 species and        With 3 species and below
   above, 150/1000.               114/1000.

   GODRON—Central France.

   With 5 species and above       With 3 species and below
   160/1000.                        105/1000.

I do not enter into details on omitting introduced plants and very varying genera, as Rubus, Salix, Rosa, etc., which would make the result more in favour.

I won't go into detail about leaving out introduced plants and the diverse genera like Rubus, Salix, Rosa, etc., as doing so would make the outcome more favorable.

I enjoyed seeing Henslow extremely, though I was a good way from well at the time. Farewell, my dear Hooker: do not forget your visit here some time.

I really enjoyed seeing Henslow, even though I wasn't feeling great at the time. Goodbye, my dear Hooker: don't forget to visit here sometime.

LETTER 54. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 14th {1857}.

On Tuesday I will send off from London, whither I go on that day, Ledebour's three remaining volumes, Grisebach and Cybele, i.e., all that I have, and most truly am I obliged to you for them. I find the rule, as yet, of the species varying most in the large genera universal, except in Miquel's very brief and therefore imperfect list of the Holland flora, which makes me very anxious to tabulate a fuller flora of Holland. I shall remain in London till Friday morning, and if quite convenient to send me two volumes of D.C. Prodromus, I could take them home and tabulate them. I should think a volume with a large best known natural family, and a volume with several small broken families would be best, always supposing that the varieties are conspicuously marked in both. Have you the volume published by Lowe on Madeira? If so and if any varieties are marked I should much like to see it, to see if I can make out anything about habitats of vars. in so small an area—a point on which I have become very curious. I fear there is no chance of your possessing Forbes and Hancock "British Shells," a grand work, which I much wish to tabulate.

On Tuesday, I’ll be leaving London, where I’ll be sending off Ledebour’s three remaining volumes, Grisebach and Cybele, meaning everything I have, and I'm truly grateful to you for them. So far, I find the rule varies quite a bit in the larger universal genera, except in Miquel’s very brief and therefore incomplete list of the Holland flora, which makes me eager to create a more comprehensive flora of Holland. I’ll be in London until Friday morning, and if it's convenient, could you send me two volumes of D.C. Prodromus? I could take them home and organize them. I think a volume with a well-known large natural family and another with several smaller, less common families would work best, assuming the varieties are clearly marked in both. Do you have the volume published by Lowe on Madeira? If so, and if any varieties are marked, I’d really like to see it to figure out something about the habitats of the varieties in such a small area—a topic I'm quite interested in. I fear you might not have Forbes and Hancock’s "British Shells," an excellent work that I really want to tabulate.

Very many thanks for seed of Adlumia cirrhosa, which I will carefully observe. My notice in the G. Ch. on Kidney Beans (54.1 "On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers" ("Gardeners' Chronicle," 1857, page 725).) has brought me a curious letter from an intelligent gardener, with a most remarkable lot of beans, crossed in a marvellous manner IN THE FIRST GENERATION, like the peas sent to you by Berkeley and like those experimentalised on by Gartner and by Wiegmann. It is a very odd case; I shall sow these seeds and see what comes up. How very odd that pollen of one form should affect the outer coats and size of the bean produced by pure species!...

Thanks a lot for the seeds of Adlumia cirrhosa, which I will observe carefully. My note in the G. Ch. about kidney beans (54.1 "On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers" ("Gardeners' Chronicle," 1857, page 725)) has generated a curious letter from an insightful gardener, along with a remarkable variety of beans that were crossbred in an extraordinary way IN THE FIRST GENERATION, similar to the peas sent to you by Berkeley and those experimented on by Gartner and Wiegmann. It’s a very strange case; I will plant these seeds and see what grows. How strange that the pollen from one type could influence the outer coats and size of the bean produced by pure species!...

LETTER 55. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1857?}.

You know how I work subjects: namely, if I stumble on any general remark, and if I find it confirmed in any other very distinct class, then I try to find out whether it is true,—if it has any bearing on my work. The following, perhaps, may be important to me. Dr. Wight remarks that Cucurbitaceae (55/1. Wight, "Remarks on the Fruit of the Natural Order Cucurbitaceae" ("Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." VIII., page 261). R. Wight, F.R.S. (1796-1872) was Superintendent of the Madras Botanic Garden.) is a very isolated family, and has very diverging affinities. I find, strongly put and illustrated, the very same remark in the genera of hymenoptera. Now, it is not to me at first apparent why a very distinct and isolated group should be apt to have more divergent affinities than a less isolated group. I am aware that most genera have more affinities than in two ways, which latter, perhaps, is the commonest case. I see how infinitely vague all this is; but I should very much like to know what you and Mr. Bentham (if he will read this), who have attended so much to the principles of classification, think of this. Perhaps the best way would be to think of half a dozen most isolated groups of plants, and then consider whether the affinities point in an unusual number of directions. Very likely you may think the whole question too vague to be worth consideration.

You know how I approach topics: if I come across a general observation and find it confirmed in a completely different category, I try to determine if it’s valid—if it relates to my work. The following might be significant for me. Dr. Wight notes that Cucurbitaceae is a very isolated family with highly divergent relationships. I find the exact same comment strongly stated and illustrated in the genera of hymenoptera. Initially, it’s not clear to me why a very distinct and isolated group would tend to have more varied relationships than a less isolated one. I know that most genera have more relationships in two ways, which is probably the most common situation. I recognize how vague this is; however, I would really like to hear what you and Mr. Bentham (if he reads this), who have focused so much on classification principles, think about it. Perhaps the best approach would be to consider half a dozen of the most isolated plant groups and see if their relationships point in an unusually high number of directions. You might find the whole question too vague to be worth considering.

LETTER 56. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 8th {1857}.

I now want to ask your opinion, and for facts on a point; and as I shall often want to do this during the next year or two, so let me say, once for all, that you must not take trouble out of mere good nature (of which towards me you have a most abundant stock), but you must consider, in regard to the trouble any question may take, whether you think it worth while—as all loss of time so far lessens your original work—to give me facts to be quoted on your authority in my work. Do not think I shall be disappointed if you cannot spare time; for already I have profited enormously from your judgment and knowledge. I earnestly beg you to act as I suggest, and not take trouble solely out of good-nature.

I want to ask for your opinion and some facts on a specific point. Since I’ll be doing this often over the next year or two, let me say upfront that I don't want you to feel obligated to help just out of kindness (which you have in abundance towards me). Consider whether you think the effort to answer my questions is worth it, since any time spent on this takes away from your own work. Don’t worry if you can’t find the time; I’ve already gained a lot from your insights and knowledge. I sincerely ask you to follow my suggestion and not feel pressured to help just because you’re being nice.

My point is as follows: Harvey gives the case of Fucus varying remarkably, and yet in same way under most different conditions. D. Don makes same remark in regard to Juncus bufonius in England and India. Polygala vulgaris has white, red, and blue flowers in Faroe, England, and I think Herbert says in Zante. Now such cases seem to me very striking, as showing how little relation some variations have to climatal conditions.

My point is this: Harvey notes that Fucus varies significantly but in a similar way under many different conditions. D. Don makes the same observation about Juncus bufonius in England and India. Polygala vulgaris has white, red, and blue flowers in the Faroe Islands, England, and I believe Herbert mentions this in Zante. These examples are quite striking to me, as they show how little some variations are connected to climatic conditions.

Do you think there are many such cases? Does Oxalis corniculata present exactly the same varieties under very different climates?

Do you think there are many cases like this? Does Oxalis corniculata show exactly the same varieties in very different climates?

How is it with any other British plants in New Zealand, or at the foot of the Himalaya? Will you think over this and let me hear the result?

How does it work with other British plants in New Zealand or at the base of the Himalayas? Can you think about this and let me know what you come up with?

One other question: do you remember whether the introduced Sonchus in New Zealand was less, equally, or more common than the aboriginal stock of the same species, where both occurred together? I forget whether there is any other case parallel with this curious one of the Sonchus...

One other question: do you remember if the introduced Sonchus in New Zealand was less common, equally common, or more common than the native population of the same species when they both occurred together? I can’t recall if there are any other similar cases to this interesting one of the Sonchus...

I have been making good, though slow, progress with my book, for facts have been falling nicely into groups, enlightening each other.

I’ve been making solid, if slow, progress on my book, as facts have been coming together nicely, shedding light on one another.

LETTER 57. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Moor Park, Farnham, Surrey {1857?}.

Your letter has been forwarded to me here, where I am profiting by a few weeks' rest and hydropathy. Your letter has interested and amused me much. I am extremely glad you have taken up the Aphis (57/1. Professor Huxley's paper on the organic reproduction of Aphis is in the "Trans. Linn. Soc." XXII. (1858), page 193. Prof. Owen had treated the subject in his introductory Hunterian lecture "On Parthenogenesis" (1849). His theory cannot be fully given here. Briefly, he holds that parthenogenesis is due to the inheritance of a "remnant of spermatic virtue": when the "spermatic force" or "virtue" is exhausted fresh impregnation occurs. Huxley severely criticises both Owen's facts and his theory.) question, but, for Heaven's sake, do not come the mild Hindoo (whatever he may be) to Owen; your father confessor trembles for you. I fancy Owen thinks much of this doctrine of his; I never from the first believed it, and I cannot but think that the same power is concerned in producing aphides without fertilisation, and producing, for instance, nails on the amputated stump of a man's fingers, or the new tail of a lizard. By the way, I saw somewhere during the last week or so a statement of a man rearing from the same set of eggs winged and wingless aphides, which seemed new to me. Does not some Yankee say that the American viviparous aphides are winged? I am particularly glad that you are ruminating on the act of fertilisation: it has long seemed to me the most wonderful and curious of physiological problems. I have often and often speculated for amusement on the subject, but quite fruitlessly. Do you not think that the conjugation of the Diatomaceae will ultimately throw light on the subject? But the other day I came to the conclusion that some day we shall have cases of young being produced from spermatozoa or pollen without an ovule. Approaching the subject from the side which attracts me most, viz., inheritance, I have lately been inclined to speculate, very crudely and indistinctly, that propagation by true fertilisation will turn out to be a sort of mixture, and not true fusion, of two distinct individuals, or rather of innumerable individuals, as each parent has its parents and ancestors. I can understand on no other view the way in which crossed forms go back to so large an extent to ancestral forms. But all this, of course, is infinitely crude. I hope to be in London in the course of this month, and there are two or three points which, for my own sake, I want to discuss briefly with you.

Your letter has been sent to me here, where I’m enjoying a few weeks of rest and hydrotherapy. Your letter has intrigued and amused me a lot. I’m really glad you've taken on the Aphis question, but please, don't approach Owen too gently; your father confessor is worried about you. I think Owen values this idea of his quite a bit; I never believed it from the start, and I can’t help but think that the same force is involved in producing aphids without fertilization, as well as in growing things like nails on an amputated finger or the regrowth of a lizard's tail. By the way, I saw a statement recently about a guy who was raising both winged and wingless aphids from the same set of eggs, which was new to me. Doesn’t some American say that the viviparous aphids in the U.S. have wings? I’m particularly pleased that you’re thinking about fertilization; it has always struck me as one of the most fascinating and curious physiological problems. I've often speculated for fun about it, but without any concrete results. Don’t you think that the joining of Diatomaceae will eventually shed light on this topic? The other day, I concluded that one day we’ll see cases of young being produced from sperm or pollen without an ovule. Looking at it from my favorite angle, inheritance, I’ve been somewhat inclined to rough speculations that true fertilization might actually be a kind of mixture, rather than a true fusion of two distinct individuals, or rather countless individuals, since each parent has its own lineage. I can’t make sense of how crossed forms can revert back so much to ancestral forms any other way. But of course, all this is very rudimentary. I hope to be in London sometime this month, and there are a couple of points I’d like to briefly discuss with you for my own sake.

LETTER 58. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 26th {1857}.

Thanks for your very pleasant note. It amuses me to see what a bug-bear I have made myself to you; when having written some very pungent and good sentence it must be very disagreeable to have my face rise up like an ugly ghost. (58/1. This probably refers to Darwin's wish to moderate a certain pugnacity in Huxley.) I have always suspected Agassiz of superficiality and wretched reasoning powers; but I think such men do immense good in their way. See how he stirred up all Europe about glaciers. By the way, Lyell has been at the glaciers, or rather their effects, and seems to have done good work in testing and judging what others have done...

Thanks for your nice note. It makes me laugh to think of how much of a nuisance I must be to you; when you’ve written a really sharp and solid sentence, it must be quite annoying to have my face pop up like an ugly ghost. (58/1. This probably refers to Darwin's wish to tone down a certain aggressiveness in Huxley.) I've always suspected Agassiz of being superficial and having poor reasoning skills, but I believe that people like him do a lot of good in their own way. Look at how he got all of Europe excited about glaciers. By the way, Lyell has been studying the glaciers—or rather their effects—and seems to have done a great job testing and evaluating the work of others...

In regard to classification and all the endless disputes about the "Natural System," which no two authors define in the same way, I believe it ought, in accordance to my heterodox notions, to be simply genealogical. But as we have no written pedigrees you will, perhaps, say this will not help much; but I think it ultimately will, whenever heterodoxy becomes orthodoxy, for it will clear away an immense amount of rubbish about the value of characters, and will make the difference between analogy and homology clear. The time will come, I believe, though I shall not live to see it, when we shall have very fairly true genealogical trees of each great kingdom of Nature.

Regarding classification and all the ongoing debates about the "Natural System," which no two authors seem to define the same way, I think it should simply be based on genealogy according to my unconventional ideas. However, since we don’t have written family trees, you might say this won't be very helpful; but I believe it eventually will be, as soon as unconventional ideas become accepted. It will eliminate a lot of unnecessary confusion about the importance of traits and clarify the difference between analogy and homology. I believe the time will come—though I won’t be around to witness it—when we will have fairly accurate genealogical trees for each major kingdom of Nature.

LETTER 59. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 16th {1857}.

In my opinion your Catalogue (59/1. It appears from a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (December 25th, 1857) that the reference is to the proofs of Huxley's "Explanatory Preface to the Catalogue of the Palaeontological Collection in the Museum of Practical Geology," by T.H. Huxley and R. Etheridge, 1865. Mr. Huxley appends a note at page xlix: "It should be noted that these pages were written before the appearance of Mr. Darwin's book on 'The Origin of Species'—a work which has effected a revolution in biological speculation.") is simply the very best resume, by far, on the whole science of Natural History, which I have ever seen. I really have no criticisms: I agree with every word. Your metaphors and explanations strike me as admirable. In many parts it is curious how what you have written agrees with what I have been writing, only with the melancholy difference for me that you put everything in twice as striking a manner as I do. I append, more for the sake of showing that I have attended to the whole than for any other object, a few most trivial criticisms.

In my opinion, your Catalogue (59/1. A letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (December 25th, 1857) indicates that the reference is to the proofs of Huxley's "Explanatory Preface to the Catalogue of the Palaeontological Collection in the Museum of Practical Geology," by T.H. Huxley and R. Etheridge, 1865. Mr. Huxley adds a note on page xlix: "It should be noted that these pages were written before the release of Mr. Darwin's book on 'The Origin of Species'—a work that has brought about a revolution in biological thought.") is simply the best summary, by far, of the entire field of Natural History that I have ever seen. I have no criticisms at all: I agree with every word. Your metaphors and explanations strike me as excellent. In many places, it's interesting how closely what you’ve written aligns with what I’ve been writing, though the unfortunate difference for me is that you present everything in a way that's twice as impactful as I do. I include a few minor criticisms, more to show that I've paid attention to the whole thing than for any other reason.

I was amused to meet with some of the arguments, which you advanced in talk with me, on classification; and it pleases me, {that} my long proses were so far not thrown away, as they led you to bring out here some good sentences. But on classification (59/2. This probably refers to Mr. Huxley's discussion on "Natural Classification," a subject hardly susceptible of fruitful treatment except from an evolutionary standpoint.) I am not quite sure that I yet wholly go with you, though I agree with every word you have here said. The whole, I repeat, in my opinion is admirable and excellent.

I found it entertaining to discuss some of the points you made about classification during our conversation, and I’m glad that my lengthy explanations weren’t in vain since they prompted you to express some strong ideas here. However, regarding classification (59/2. This probably refers to Mr. Huxley's discussion on "Natural Classification," a subject hardly susceptible of fruitful treatment except from an evolutionary standpoint.), I'm still not completely convinced and I haven't fully aligned with your views yet, even though I agree with everything you said here. Overall, I reiterate that I think it's all admirable and excellent.

LETTER 60. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 28th {1858}.

Hearty thanks for De Candolle received. I have put the big genera in hand. Also many thanks for your valuable remarks on the affinities of the species in great genera, which will be of much use to me in my chapter on classification. Your opinion is what I had expected from what little I knew, but I much wanted it confirmed, and many of your remarks were more or less new to me and all of value.

Hearty thanks for the feedback from De Candolle. I've started working on the large genera. Also, I really appreciate your valuable insights on the relationships between the species in the major genera; they'll be very helpful for my chapter on classification. Your thoughts were what I anticipated based on my limited knowledge, but I really needed that confirmation, and many of your comments were somewhat new to me and all useful.

You give a poor picture of the philosophy of Botany. From my ignorance, I suppose, I can hardly persuade myself that things are quite as bad as you make them,—you might have been writing remarks on Ornithology! I shall meditate much on your remarks, which will also come in very useful when I write and consider my tables of big and small genera. I grieve for myself to say that Watson agrees with your view, but with much doubt. I gave him no guide what your opinion was. I have written to A. Gray and to X., who—i.e. the latter—on this point may be looked at as S. Smith's Foolometer.

You really misrepresent the philosophy of Botany. Maybe it’s just my lack of knowledge, but I can barely believe it’s as bad as you say—it sounds more like you're commenting on Ornithology! I’ll think a lot about your points, which will also be very helpful when I write and analyze my lists of major and minor genera. I'm sorry to say that Watson somewhat agrees with your opinion, but he has many doubts. I didn’t give him any indication of what you thought. I’ve also written to A. Gray and to X., who—the latter—can be considered as S. Smith's Foolometer on this matter.

I am now working several of the large local Floras, with leaving out altogether all the smallest genera. When I have done this, and seen what the sections of the largest genera say, and seen what the results are of range and commonness of varying species, I must come to some definite conclusion whether or not entirely to give up the ghost. I shall then show how my theory points, how the facts stand, then state the nature of your grievous assault and yield entirely or defend the case as far as I can honestly.

I am currently working on several of the major local plant collections, completely excluding the smallest groups. Once I finish this, and observe what the sections of the largest groups reveal, as well as the outcomes of the distribution and prevalence of the different species, I need to reach a clear decision on whether or not to give up entirely. I will then demonstrate what my theory suggests, outline the current facts, address the nature of your serious criticism, and either fully concede or defend my position as best as I can honestly.

Again I thank you for your invaluable assistance. I have not felt the blow {Hooker's criticisms} so much of late, as I have been beyond measure interested on the constructive instinct of the hive-bee. Adios, you terrible worrier of poor theorists!

Again I thank you for your invaluable help. I haven't felt the impact of {Hooker's criticisms} as much recently, as I've been incredibly interested in the constructive instincts of the hive-bee. Goodbye, you relentless worrier of poor theorists!

LETTER 61. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1858?}

Many thanks for Ledebour and still more for your letter, with its admirable resume of all your objections. It is really most kind of you to take so very much trouble about what seems to you, and probably is, mere vagaries.

Many thanks to Ledebour and even more for your letter, with its excellent summary of all your objections. It’s truly kind of you to put in so much effort on what seems to you, and probably is, just trivial matters.

I will earnestly try and be cautious. I will write out my tables and conclusion, and (when well copied out) I hope you will be so kind as to read it. I will then put it by and after some months look at it with fresh eyes. I will briefly work in all your objections and Watson's. I labour under a great difficulty from feeling sure that, with what very little systematic work I have done, small genera were more interesting and therefore more attracted my attention.

I will sincerely try to be careful. I’ll write out my tables and conclusion, and once they’re neatly copied, I hope you’ll be kind enough to read them. Then I’ll set it aside and revisit it in a few months with a fresh perspective. I’ll quickly address all your objections and Watson’s. I’m really struggling because I’m convinced that, given the little systematic work I’ve done, smaller groups are more interesting and have therefore captured my attention more.

One of your remarks I do not see the bearing of under your point of view—namely, that in monotypic genera "the variation and variability" are "much more frequently noticed" than in polytypic genera. I hardly like to ask, but this is the only one of your arguments of which I do not see the bearing; and I certainly should be very glad to know. I believe I am the slowest (perhaps the worst) thinker in England; and I now consequently fully admit the full hostility of Urticaceae, which I will give in my tables.

One of your comments I don’t understand from your perspective is that in monotypic genera, “the variation and variability” are “much more frequently noticed” than in polytypic genera. I hesitate to ask, but this is the only argument of yours I don’t grasp; I would really like to understand it. I believe I might be the slowest (maybe even the worst) thinker in England; and I now completely acknowledge the total hostility of Urticaceae, which I will outline in my tables.

I will make no remarks on your objections, as I do hope you will read my MS., which will not cost you much trouble when fairly copied out. From my own experience, I hardly believe that the most sagacious observers, without counting, could have predicted whether there were more or fewer recorded varieties in large or small genera; for I found, when actually making the list, that I could never strike a balance in my mind,—a good many varieties occurring together, in small or in large genera, always threw me off the balance...

I won't comment on your objections, but I really hope you'll read my manuscript, which won't take you too much effort once it's neatly copied. From my own experience, I don't believe even the most insightful observers could have guessed whether there were more or fewer recorded varieties in large or small genera without counting. When I was actually compiling the list, I could never weigh things in my mind properly—many varieties popping up together, whether in small or large genera, always threw me off balance...

P.S.—I have just thought that your remark about the much variation of monotypic genera was to show me that even in these, the smallest genera, there was much variability. If this be so, then do not answer; and I will so understand it.

P.S.—I just realized that your comment about the wide variation in monotypic genera was to point out that even in these smallest groups, there is a lot of variability. If that's the case, then don't respond; I'll take it that way.

LETTER 62. TO J.D. HOOKER. February 23rd {1858}.

Will you think of some of the largest genera with which you are well acquainted, and then suppose 4/5 of the species utterly destroyed and unknown in the sections (as it were) as much as possible in the centre of such great genera. Then would the remaining 1/5 of the species, forming a few sections, be, according to the general practice of average good Botanists, ranked as distinct genera? Of course they would in that case be closely related genera. The question, in fact, is, are all the species in a gigantic genus kept together in that genus, because they are really so very closely similar as to be inseparable? or is it because no chasms or boundaries can be drawn separating the many species? The question might have been put for Orders.

Think of some of the biggest genera you know well, and then imagine that 80% of the species are completely wiped out and unknown in the sections, particularly in the central areas of these large genera. Would the remaining 20% of the species, which form a few sections, be classified as separate genera by most good botanists? They would likely be seen as closely related genera. The real question is, are all the species in a large genus grouped together because they are so similar that they can’t be separated? Or is it because it’s impossible to draw clear lines or boundaries between the many species? This question could also apply to Orders.

LETTER 63. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 9th {1858}.

I should be very much obliged for your opinion on the enclosed. You may remember in the three first volumes tabulated, all orders went right except Labiatae. By the way, if by any extraordinary chance you have not thrown away the scrap of paper with former results, I wish you would return it, for I have lost my copy, and I shall have all the division to do again; but DO NOT hunt for it, for in any case I should have gone over the calculation again.

I would really appreciate your thoughts on what I've enclosed. You might recall that in the first three volumes I organized, all the orders were correct except for Labiatae. By the way, if by any chance you haven't tossed that scrap of paper with the previous results, I'd like you to send it back to me since I’ve lost my copy, and I’ll have to redo all the divisions. But please, don’t go looking for it, as I would have double-checked the calculations anyway.

Now I have done the three other volumes. You will see that all species in the six volumes together go right, and likewise all orders in the three last volumes, except Verbenaceae. Is not Verbenaceae very closely allied to Labiatae? If so, one would think that it was not mere chance, this coincidence. The species in Labiatae and Verbenaceae together are between 1/5 and 1/6 of all the species (15,645), which I have now tabulated.

Now I've completed the other three volumes. You’ll notice that all the species across the six volumes fit together correctly, and similarly, all the orders in the last three volumes do as well, except for Verbenaceae. Isn’t Verbenaceae very closely related to Labiatae? If that's the case, it’s hard to chalk this coincidence up to mere chance. The species in Labiatae and Verbenaceae combined account for about 1/5 to 1/6 of all the species (15,645) that I’ve now cataloged.

Now, bearing in mind the many local Floras which I have tabulated (belting the whole northern hemisphere), and considering that they (and authors of D.C. Prodromus) would probably take different degrees of care in recording varieties, and the genera would be divided on different principles by different men, etc., I am much surprised at the uniformity of the result, and I am satisfied that there must be truth in the rule that the small genera vary less than the large. What do you think? Hypothetically I can conjecture how the Labiatae might fail—namely, if some small divisions of the Order were now coming into importance in the world and varying much and making species. This makes me want to know whether you could divide the Labiatae into a few great natural divisions, and then I would tabulate them separately as sub-orders. I see Lindley makes so many divisions that there would not be enough in each for an average. I send the table of the Labiatae for the chance of your being able to do this for me. You might draw oblique lines including and separating both large and small genera. I have also divided all the species into two equal masses, and my rule holds good for all the species in a mass in the six volumes; but it fails in several (four) large Orders—viz. Labiatae, Scrophulariaceae, Acanthaceae, and Proteaceae. But, then, when the species are divided into two almost exactly equal divisions, the divisions with large genera are so very few: for instance, in Solanaceae, Solanum balances all others. In Labiatae seven gigantic genera balance all others (viz. 113), and in Proteaceae five genera balance all others. Now, according to my hypothetical notions, I am far from supposing that all genera go on increasing forever, and therefore I am not surprised at this result, when the division is so made that only a very few genera are on one side. But, according to my notions, the sections or sub-genera of the gigantic genera ought to obey my rule (i.e., supposing a gigantic genus had come to its maximum, whatever increase was still going on ought to be going on in the larger sub-genera). Do you think that the sections of the gigantic genera in D.C. Prodromus are generally NATURAL: i.e. not founded on mere artificial characters? If you think that they are generally made as natural as they can be, then I should like very much to tabulate the sub-genera, considering them for the time as good genera. In this case, and if you do not think me unreasonable to ask it, I should be very glad of the loan of Volumes X., XI., XII., and XIV., which include Acanthaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Labiatae, and Proteaceae,—that is, the orders which, when divided quite equally, do not accord with my rule, and in which a very few genera balance all the others.

Now, considering the numerous local Floras I've compiled (covering the entire northern hemisphere) and the fact that they (along with the authors of D.C. Prodromus) likely take different levels of care when documenting varieties, and that different people would categorize the genera based on various principles, I'm quite surprised by the consistency of the results. I'm convinced there must be some truth in the idea that smaller genera tend to vary less than larger ones. What are your thoughts? Hypothetically, I can imagine how the Labiatae might not hold—specifically if some smaller divisions of the Order were gaining significance and varying a lot, leading to new species. This makes me curious if you could categorize the Labiatae into a few major natural groupings, after which I would list them separately as sub-orders. I notice that Lindley creates so many divisions that there wouldn't be enough in each for an average. I'm sending you the table of the Labiatae in hopes that you could help with this. You might draw lines to include and separate both large and small genera. I've also split all the species into two equal groups, and my rule is consistent for all species in those six volumes; however, it does fail for several (four) large Orders—namely Labiatae, Scrophulariaceae, Acanthaceae, and Proteaceae. But when the species are divided into almost exactly equal sections, the groups with large genera are quite limited: for example, in Solanaceae, Solanum equates all others. In Labiatae, seven large genera balance the rest (which totals 113), and in Proteaceae, five genera balance all others. Now, based on my hypothetical views, I don't believe that all genera continue to increase indefinitely, so I'm not shocked by this outcome when the division is such that only a few genera are on one side. However, I think the sections or sub-genera of the large genera should follow my rule (i.e., assuming a large genus has reached its maximum, any remaining increase should occur within the larger sub-genera). Do you think the sections of the large genera in D.C. Prodromus are generally NATURAL: that is, not based solely on artificial characteristics? If you believe they are as natural as possible, I would really like to tabulate the sub-genera, considering them temporarily as valid genera. In this situation, and if you don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask, I would greatly appreciate borrowing Volumes X, XI, XII, and XIV, which cover Acanthaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Labiatae, and Proteaceae—those Orders which, when equally divided, don’t align with my rule, and in which very few genera balance all the others.

I have written you a tremendous long prose.

I have written you a really long piece of writing.

LETTER 64. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 8th {1858}.

I am confined to the sofa with boils, so you must let me write in pencil. You would laugh if you could know how much your note pleased me. I had the firmest conviction that you would say all my MS. was bosh, and thank God, you are one of the few men who dare speak the truth. Though I should not have much cared about throwing away what you have seen, yet I have been forced to confess to myself that all was much alike, and if you condemned that you would condemn all my life's work, and that I confess made me a little low; but I could have borne it, for I have the conviction that I have honestly done my best. The discussion comes in at the end of the long chapter on variation in a state of nature, so that I have discussed, as far as I am able, what to call varieties. I will try to leave out all allusion to genera coming in and out in this part, till when I discuss the "Principle of Divergence," which, with "Natural Selection," is the keystone of my book; and I have very great confidence it is sound. I would have this discussion copied out, if I could really think it would not bore you to read,—for, believe me, I value to the full every word of criticism from you, and the advantage which I have derived from you cannot be told...

I’m stuck on the sofa with boils, so I need to write in pencil. You would laugh if you knew how much your note made me happy. I was certain you would say all my manuscript was nonsense, and thank God you’re one of the few men who dare to speak the truth. While I wouldn’t have cared much about tossing aside what you saw, I’ve had to admit to myself that everything was quite similar, and if you found that lacking, you would be condemning all my life’s work, which honestly made me feel a bit down. But I could have handled it, because I truly believe I’ve done my best. The discussion appears at the end of the long chapter on variation in nature, where I’ve tried to explain what to call varieties as best as I can. I’ll try to avoid mentioning how genera come and go in this section, until I discuss the "Principle of Divergence," which, along with "Natural Selection," is the cornerstone of my book; and I have a lot of confidence that it’s solid. I’d have this discussion copied out if I really thought it wouldn't bore you to read it—believe me, I value every word of your criticism, and I can’t express how much I’ve gained from you…

I am glad to hear that poor old Brown is dying so easily...

I’m glad to hear that poor old Brown is dying so peacefully…

You will think it paltry, but as I was asked to pay for printing the Diploma {from a Society of which he had been made an honorary member}, I did not like to refuse, so I send 1 pound. But I think it a shabby proceeding. If a gentleman did me some service, though unasked to do it, and then demanded payment, I should pay him, and think him a shabby dog; and on this principle I send my 1 pound.

You might consider it a small amount, but since I was asked to cover the cost of printing the Diploma {from a Society where he was granted honorary membership}, I didn’t want to decline, so I’m sending £1. However, I find it a petty move. If a gentleman did me a favor, even if I didn’t ask for it, and then he asked for payment, I would pay him but think he was being really cheap; and based on this reasoning, I’m sending my £1.

(65/1. The following four letters refer to an inquiry instituted in 1858 by the Trustees of the British Museum as to the disposal of the Natural History Collections. The inquiry was one of the first steps towards the establishment of the Cromwell Road Museum, which was effected in 1875.)

(65/1. The following four letters refer to an inquiry started in 1858 by the Trustees of the British Museum regarding the management of the Natural History Collections. This inquiry was one of the first steps toward establishing the Cromwell Road Museum, which was completed in 1875.)

LETTER 65. TO R.I. MURCHISON. Down, June 19th {1858}.

I have just received your note. Unfortunately I cannot attend at the British Museum on Monday. I do not suppose my opinion on the subject of your note can be of any value, as I have not much considered the subject, or had the advantage of discussing it with other naturalists. But my impression is, that there is much weight in what you say about not breaking up the natural history collection of the British Museum. I think a national collection ought to be in London. I can, however, see that some weighty arguments might be advanced in favour of Kew, owing to the immense value of Sir W. Hooker's collection and library; but these are private property, and I am not aware that there is any certainty of their always remaining at Kew. Had this been the case, I should have thought that the botanical collection might have been removed there without endangering the other branches of the collections. But I think it would be the greatest evil which could possibly happen to natural science in this country if the other collections were ever to be removed from the British Museum and Library.

I've just received your note. Unfortunately, I can't make it to the British Museum on Monday. I don't think my opinion on your note's subject is very valuable since I haven't considered it much or discussed it with other naturalists. However, I feel strongly that there's a lot of merit in what you say about not breaking up the natural history collection at the British Museum. I believe a national collection should be based in London. I can understand that there are some strong arguments for Kew because of the immense value of Sir W. Hooker's collection and library, but those are private property, and I'm not sure they'll always stay at Kew. If that were guaranteed, I would have thought the botanical collection could be moved there without putting the other branches of the collections at risk. However, I believe it would be the biggest setback for natural science in this country if the other collections were ever moved from the British Museum and Library.

LETTER 66. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(66/1. The memorial referred to in the following letter was addressed on November 18th to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was signed by Huxley, Bentham, W.H. Harvey, Henfrey, Henslow, Lindley, Busk, Carpenter, and Darwin. The memorial, which is accessible, as published in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," November 27th, 1858, page 861, recommended, speaking generally, the consolidation of the National Botanical collections at Kew.

(66/1. The memorial mentioned in the following letter was sent on November 18th to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was signed by Huxley, Bentham, W.H. Harvey, Henfrey, Henslow, Lindley, Busk, Carpenter, and Darwin. The memorial, which can be found in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," November 27th, 1858, page 861, generally recommended the consolidation of the National Botanical collections at Kew.

In February, 1900, a Committee was appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury "to consider the present arrangements under which botanical work is done and collections maintained by the Trustees of the British Museum, and under the First Commissioner of Works at Kew, respectively; and to report what changes (if any) in those arrangements are necessary or desirable in order to avoid duplication of work and collections at the two institutions." The Committee published their report in March, 1901, recommending an arrangement similar to that proposed in 1858.)

In February 1900, a Committee was set up by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury "to evaluate the current systems for botanical work and collection maintenance by the Trustees of the British Museum and by the First Commissioner of Works at Kew; and to report on any necessary or desirable changes to avoid duplication of work and collections at the two institutions." The Committee released their report in March 1901, recommending an arrangement similar to what was proposed in 1858.

Down, October 23rd {1858}.

Down, October 23, 1858.

The names which you give as supporting your memorial make me quite distrust my own judgment; but, as I must say yea or nay, I am forced to say that I doubt the wisdom of the movement, and am not willing at present to sign. My reasons, perhaps of very little value, are as follows. The governing classes are thoroughly unscientific, and the men of art and of archaeology have much greater weight with Government than we have. If we make a move to separate from the British Museum, I cannot but fear that we may go to the dogs. I think we owe our position in large part to the hundreds of thousands of people who visit the British Museum, attracted by the heterogeneous mixture of objects. If we lost this support, as I think we should—for a mere collection of animals does not seem very attractive to the masses (judging from the Museum of the Zoological Society, formerly in Leicester Square)—then I do not think we should get nearly so much aid from Government. Therefore I should be inclined to stick to the mummies and Assyrian gods as long as we could. If we knew that Government was going to turn us out, then, and not till then, I should be inclined to make an energetic move. If we were to separate, I do not believe that we should have funds granted for the many books required for occasional reference: each man must speak from his own experience. I have so repeatedly required to see old Transactions and old Travels, etc., that I should regret extremely, when at work at the British Museum, to be separated from the entire library. The facilities for working at certain great classes—as birds, large fossils, etc.—are no doubt as bad as possible, or rather impossible, on the open days; but I have found the working rooms of the Assistants very convenient for all other classes on all days.

The names you provided to support your request really make me doubt my own judgment; but since I have to say yes or no, I’m forced to express my skepticism about this movement and I’m not currently willing to sign. My reasons, which might not hold much weight, are as follows. The people in charge are completely unscientific, and artists and archaeologists carry much more influence with the Government than we do. If we decide to break away from the British Museum, I can’t help but worry that we might fail miserably. I believe our status is largely due to the hundreds of thousands of people who visit the British Museum, drawn in by the diverse collection of objects. If we lost this support, which I think we would—since a simple collection of animals doesn’t seem very appealing to the general public (based on the Zoological Society’s Museum that used to be in Leicester Square)—then I don’t believe we’d receive nearly as much funding from the Government. So, I’d prefer to hold on to the mummies and Assyrian gods for as long as we can. If we knew that the Government was planning to kick us out, then, and only then, I would consider making a strong move. If we were to separate, I don’t think we would receive financial support for the many books we’d need for occasional reference: each person has to speak from their own experience. I have often needed to access old Transactions and Travels, etc., and I would be extremely disappointed to be separated from the entire library while working at the British Museum. The conditions for researching certain key categories—like birds and large fossils—are undoubtedly as poor as can be, or rather impossible, on open days; but I’ve found the working rooms of the Assistants to be very convenient for all other categories at any time.

In regard to the botanical collections, I am too ignorant to express any opinion. The point seems to be how far botanists would object to travel to Kew; but there are evidently many great advantages in the transportation.

In terms of the plant collections, I don’t know enough to share any opinion. The question seems to be how far botanists would be willing to travel to Kew; however, there are clearly many significant benefits to the transportation.

If I had my own way, I would make the British Museum collection only a typical one for display, which would be quite as amusing and far more instructive to the populace (and I think to naturalists) than the present enormous display of birds and mammals. I would save expense of stuffing, and would keep all skins, except a few "typicals," in drawers. Thus much room would be saved, and a little more space could be given to real workers, who could work all day. Rooms fitted up with thousands of drawers would cost very little. With this I should be contented. Until I had pretty sure information that we were going to be turned out, I would not stir in the matter. With such opponents as you name, I daresay I am quite wrong; but this is my best, though doubtful, present judgment...

If I had my way, I'd simplify the British Museum collection to just a typical display, which would be just as entertaining and much more educational for the public (and I believe for naturalists too) than the current massive display of birds and mammals. I would cut costs on taxidermy and keep all skins, except for a few "typicals," in drawers. This would free up a lot of space, allowing more room for actual researchers who could work all day. Having rooms filled with thousands of drawers would be very affordable. This is what I would be satisfied with. Until I have reliable information that we're going to be let go, I wouldn't take any action on this. With opponents like you mentioned, I might be completely wrong; but this is my best, albeit uncertain, current opinion...

It seems to me dangerous even to hint at a new Scientific Museum—a popular Museum, and to subsidise the Zoological Gardens; it would, I think, frighten any Government.

It seems to me that even suggesting a new Science Museum—a public Museum—and funding the Zoo would probably scare any Government.

LETTER 67. TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Farnham, Surrey {October} 29th {1858}.

As you say that you have good private information that Government does intend to remove the collection from the British Museum, the case to me individually is wholly changed; and as the memorial now stands, with such expression at its head, I have no objection whatever to sign. I must express a very strong opinion that it would be an immense evil to remove to Kensington, not on account of the men of science so much as for the masses in the whole eastern and central part of London. I further think it would be a great evil to separate a typical collection (which I can by no means look at as only popular) from the collection in full. Might not some expression be added, even stronger than those now used, on the display (which is a sort of vanity in the curators) of such a vast number of birds and mammals, with such a loss of room. I am low at the conviction that Government will never give money enough for a really good library.

As you mentioned that you have reliable information that the Government plans to remove the collection from the British Museum, my perspective has completely changed. As the memorial currently stands, with such a statement at the top, I have no objections to signing it. I must strongly express my belief that moving it to Kensington would be a huge mistake, not just for the scientists but for the general public in the entire eastern and central part of London. I also believe it would be a significant mistake to separate a representative collection—one that I don't see as just popular—from the entire collection. Could we add a stronger statement than what's currently used about the display—which seems a bit self-indulgent on the curators’ part—of such a large number of birds and mammals, given the loss of space? I truly believe the Government will never allocate enough funds for a truly good library.

I do not want to be crotchety, but I should hate signing without some expression about the site being easily accessible to the populace of the whole of London.

I don’t want to be grumpy, but I really dislike signing without mentioning that the site should be easy for everyone in London to access.

I repeat, as things now stand, I shall be proud to sign.

I say again, given the current situation, I will be proud to sign.

LETTER 68. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 3rd {1858}.

I most entirely subscribe to all you say in your note. I have had some correspondence with Hooker on the subject. As it seems certain that a movement in the British Museum is generally anticipated, my main objection is quite removed; and, as I have told Hooker, I have no objection whatever to sign a memorial of the nature of the one he sent me or that now returned. Both seem to me very good. I cannot help being fearful whether Government will ever grant money enough for books. I can see many advantages in not being under the unmotherly wing of art and archaeology, and my only fear was that we were not strong enough to live without some protection, so profound, I think, is the contempt for and ignorance of Natural Science amongst the gentry of England. Hooker tells me that I should be converted into favour of Kensington Gore if I heard all that could be said in its favour; but I cannot yet help thinking so western a locality a great misfortune. Has Lyell been consulted? His would be a powerful name, and such names go for much with our ignorant Governors. You seem to have taken much trouble in the business, and I honour you for it.

I completely agree with everything you wrote in your note. I've had some discussions with Hooker on the topic. Since it seems likely that there will be changes at the British Museum, my main concern is already resolved; as I told Hooker, I’m open to signing a petition like the one he sent me or the one I just returned. Both seem very reasonable to me. However, I can’t shake my worry that the Government won't allocate enough funds for books. I see several benefits in not being under the unkind oversight of art and archaeology, but my only concern was that we might not be strong enough to thrive without some support, as there seems to be a deep-seated contempt for and ignorance of Natural Science among the upper class in England. Hooker mentioned that I might change my mind about Kensington Gore if I heard all the arguments in its favor, but I still think that such a western location is a significant drawback. Has Lyell been consulted? His name carries a lot of weight, and influential names matter a lot to our uninformed leaders. I appreciate the effort you've put into this matter, and I respect you for it.

LETTER 69. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 9th {1858}.

I am quite delighted to hear about the Copley and Lyell. (69/1. The Copley Medal of the Royal Society was awarded to Lyell in 1858.) I have grown hot with indignation many times thinking of the way the proposal was met last year, according to your account of it. I am also very glad to hear of Hancock (Albany Hancock received a Royal Medal in 1858.); it will show the provincials are not neglected. Altogether the medals are capital. I shall be proud and bound to help in any way about the eloge, which is rather a heavy tax on proposers of medals, as I found about Richardson and Westwood; but Lyell's case will be twenty times as difficult. I will begin this very evening dotting down a few remarks on Lyell; though, no doubt, most will be superfluous, and several would require deliberate consideration. Anyhow, such notes may be a preliminary aid to you; I will send them in a few days' time, and will do anything else you may wish...

I'm really excited to hear about Copley and Lyell. (69/1. The Copley Medal of the Royal Society was awarded to Lyell in 1858.) I've felt a lot of anger thinking about how the proposal was handled last year, based on your account. I'm also really happy to hear about Hancock (Albany Hancock received a Royal Medal in 1858.); it shows that people outside of the main areas are not being overlooked. Overall, the medals are excellent. I'll feel proud and obligated to help with the eulogy, which is quite a burden on the people proposing medals, as I learned with Richardson and Westwood; but Lyell's situation will be twenty times more challenging. I'll start tonight by jotting down some thoughts on Lyell; however, I know that most will be unnecessary and some will need careful thought. In any case, these notes might be a useful initial aid for you; I'll send them in a few days and will do anything else you need...

P.S.—I have had a letter from Henslow this morning. He comes here on {Thursday} 25th, and I shall be delighted to see him; but it stops my coming to the Club, as I had arranged to do, and now I suppose I shall not be in London till December 16th, if odds and ends do not compel me to come sooner. Of course I have not said a word to Henslow of my change of plans. I had looked forward with pleasure to a chat with you and others.

P.S.—I got a letter from Henslow this morning. He's coming here on {Thursday} 25th, and I'm really looking forward to seeing him; but that means I won’t be able to go to the Club like I had planned, and I guess I won’t be in London until December 16th, unless something comes up that makes me come sooner. Of course, I haven’t mentioned anything to Henslow about changing my plans. I was looking forward to having a chat with you and others.

P.S. 2.—I worked all yesterday evening in thinking, and have written the paper sent by this post this morning. Not one sentence would do, but it is the sort of rough sketch which I should have drawn out if I had had to do it. God knows whether it will at all aid you. It is miserably written, with horridly bad metaphors, probably horrid bad grammar. It is my deliberate impression, such as I should have written to any friend who had asked me what I thought of Lyell's merits. I will do anything else which you may wish, or that I can.

P.S. 2.—I spent all last night thinking and wrote the paper sent with this morning’s post. Not a single sentence would suffice, but it’s the kind of rough outline I would have prepared if I needed to. God knows if it will help you at all. It’s poorly written, with terrible metaphors, probably awful grammar. It’s my honest impression, just like I would have shared with any friend who asked me about Lyell's merits. I’ll do anything else you need or that I can help with.

LETTER 70. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 30th {1858}.

I have had this copied to save you trouble, as it was vilely written, and is now vilely expressed.

I copied this for you to save you the hassle since it was poorly written and is now poorly expressed.

Your letter has interested me greatly; but how inextricable are the subjects which we are discussing! I do not think I said that I thought the productions of Asia were HIGHER (70/1. On the use of the terms "higher" and "lower" see Letters 35 and 36.) than those of Australia. I intend carefully to avoid this expression (70/2. In a paper of pencilled notes pinned into Darwin's copy of the "Vestiges" occur the words: "Never use the word (sic) higher and lower."), for I do not think that any one has a definite idea what is meant by higher, except in classes which can loosely be compared with man. On our theory of Natural Selection, if the organisms of any area belonging to the Eocene or Secondary periods were put into competition with those now existing in the same area (or probably in any part of the world) they (i.e. the old ones) would be beaten hollow and be exterminated; if the theory be true, this must be so. In the same manner, I believe, a greater number of the productions of Asia, the largest territory in the world, would beat those of Australia, than conversely. So it seems to be between Europe and North America, for I can hardly believe in the difference of the stream of commerce causing so great a difference in the proportions of immigrants. But this sort of highness (I wish I could invent some expression, and must try to do so) is different from highness in the common acceptation of the word. It might be connected with degradation of organisation: thus the blind degraded worm-like snake (Typhlops) might supplant the true earthworm. Here then would be degradation in the class, but certainly increase in the scale of organisation in the general inhabitants of the country. On the other hand, it would be quite as easy to believe that true earthworms might beat out the Typhlops. I do not see how this "competitive highness" can be tested in any way by us. And this is a comfort to me when mentally comparing the Silurian and Recent organisms. Not that I doubt a long course of "competitive highness" will ultimately make the organisation higher in every sense of the word; but it seems most difficult to test it. Look at the Erigeron canadensis on the one hand and Anacharis (70/3. Anacharis (Elodea canadensis) and Erigeron canadensis are both successful immigrants from America.) on the other; these plants must have some advantage over European productions, to spread as they have. Yet who could discover it? Monkeys can co-exist with sloths and opossums, orders at the bottom of the scale; and the opossums might well be beaten by placental insectivores, coming from a country where there were no monkeys, etc. I should be sorry to give up the view that an old and very large continuous territory would generally produce organisms higher in the competitive sense than a smaller territory. I may, of course, be quite wrong about the plants of Australia (and your facts are, of course, quite new to me on their highness), but when I read the accounts of the immense spreading of European plants in Australia, and think of the wool and corn brought thence to Europe, and not one plant naturalised, I can hardly avoid the suspicion that Europe beats Australia in its productions. If many (i.e. more than one or two) Australian plants are TRULY naturalised in India (N.B. Naturalisation on Indian mountains hardly quite fair, as mountains are small islands in the land) I must strike my colours. I should be glad to hear whether what I have written very obscurely on this point produces ANY effect on you; for I want to clear my mind, as perhaps I should put a sentence or two in my abstract on this subject. (70/4. Abstract was Darwin's name for the "Origin" during parts of 1858 and 1859.)

Your letter has really caught my interest, but the topics we're discussing are so intertwined! I don't think I said I believed the contributions from Asia were BETTER than those from Australia. I intend to avoid that wording because I don't think anyone has a clear idea of what "better" means, except in comparisons that can loosely relate to humans. According to our theory of Natural Selection, if organisms from the Eocene or Secondary periods were put into competition with those currently living in the same area (or probably anywhere in the world), the old ones would be completely outmatched and wiped out; if the theory is correct, this has to be the case. Similarly, I believe that more of the contributions from Asia, which is the largest territory in the world, would outperform those from Australia rather than the other way around. The same seems to hold true for Europe and North America; I can hardly believe that differences in trade could lead to such a large disparity in the number of immigrants. However, this type of superiority (I wish I could find a better term and will try to do so) is different from what "better" usually means. It might connect to the degradation of organization: for instance, a blind, degraded worm-like snake (Typhlops) might replace a true earthworm. Here we would see a decline in one category but definitely an increase in the level of organization among the overall inhabitants of the region. Conversely, it could also be possible that true earthworms could outcompete the Typhlops. I don't see how we can test this "competitive superiority" in any meaningful way. This gives me some comfort when mentally comparing Silurian and modern organisms. Not that I doubt that a long period of "competitive superiority" will eventually lead to higher organization in every sense of the word; it just seems very hard to test. Consider Erigeron canadensis on one side and Anacharis on the other; these plants must have some advantage over European species to spread as they have. Yet who could figure out what that advantage is? Monkeys can coexist with sloths and opossums, which are at the bottom of the scale; and opossums could easily be outcompeted by placental insectivores from a place without monkeys, etc. I would hate to abandon the idea that a large, continuous territory generally produces organisms that are more competitive than those from a smaller territory. Of course, I could be entirely wrong about Australian plants (and your observations about their superiority are new to me), but when I read about the extensive spread of European plants in Australia and consider the wool and corn shipped back to Europe, with no plants becoming established there, I can't shake the suspicion that Europe outperforms Australia in its contributions. If many (i.e., more than one or two) Australian plants are TRULY established in India (Note: Naturalization on Indian mountains isn't entirely fair, as mountains are like small islands in the land), I will have to reconsider my stance. I would appreciate hearing whether what I've written, which is quite unclear on this topic, has any effect on you; I want to clarify my thoughts, as I might want to include a sentence or two about this in my abstract.

I have always been willing to strike my colours on former immense tracts of land in oceans, if any case required it in an eminent degree. Perhaps yours may be a case, but at present I greatly prefer land in the Antarctic regions, where now there is only ice and snow, but which before the Glacial period might well have been clothed by vegetation. You have thus to invent far less land, and that more central; and aid is got by floating ice for transporting seed.

I’ve always been ready to give up my claims on large areas of land in oceans if there’s a significant reason to do so. Maybe your situation is one of those, but right now I’d much rather have land in the Antarctic regions, which is currently just ice and snow, but could have been covered in vegetation before the Glacial period. This way, you need to create much less land, and it’s more centrally located; plus, floating ice can help with transporting seeds.

I hope I shall not weary you by scribbling my notions at this length. After writing last to you I began to think that the Malay Land might have existed through part of the Glacial epoch. Why I at first doubted was from the difference of existing mammals in different islands; but many are very close, and some identical in the islands, and I am constantly deceiving myself from thinking of the little change which the shells and plants, whilst all co-existing in their own northern hemisphere, have undergone since the Glacial epoch; but I am convinced that this is most false reasoning, for the relations of organism to new organisms, when thrown together, are by far the most important.

I hope I won't bore you by rambling on like this. After my last message to you, I started to consider that Malay Land might have been around during part of the Ice Age. My initial doubts came from the differences in mammals across the various islands; however, many are quite similar, and some are identical on different islands. I keep tricking myself by thinking about the little changes that shells and plants, all of which exist in their own northern hemisphere, have gone through since the Ice Age. But I'm sure this is really flawed reasoning, because the relationships between organisms and new organisms that come together are much more significant.

When you speak of plants having undergone more change since old geological periods than animals, are you not rather comparing plants with higher animals? Think how little some, indeed many, mollusca have changed. Remember Silurian Nautilus, Lingula and other Brachiopods, and Nucula, and amongst Echinoderms, the Silurian Asterias, etc.

When you talk about plants undergoing more change since ancient geological periods than animals, aren't you actually comparing plants to higher animals? Consider how little some, in fact many, mollusks have changed. Remember the Silurian Nautilus, Lingula, and other Brachiopods, as well as Nucula, and among Echinoderms, the Silurian Asterias, etc.

What you say about lowness of brackish-water plants interests me. I remember that they are apt to be social (i.e. many individuals in comparison to specific forms), and I should be tempted to look at this as a case of a very small area, and consequently of very few individuals in comparison with those on the land or in pure fresh-water; and hence less development (odious word!) than on land or fresh-water. But here comes in your two-edged sword! I should like much to see any paper on plants of brackish water or on the edge of the sea; but I suppose such has never been published.

What you mentioned about the low diversity of brackish-water plants really piques my interest. I recall that they tend to be more social (meaning there are many individuals compared to specific forms) and I’m inclined to think of this as a situation where there’s a very small area, which leads to far fewer individuals compared to those found on land or in pure freshwater; therefore, there’s less development (that annoying word!) than on land or in freshwater. But here’s where your argument gets tricky! I would really love to see any research on brackish water plants or those at the coastline; but I assume nothing like that has ever been published.

Thanks about Nelumbium, for I think this was the very plant which from the size of seed astonished me, and which A. De Candolle adduced as a marvellous case of almost impossible transport. I now find to my surprise that herons do feed sometimes on {illegible} fruit; and grebes on seeds of Compositae.

Thanks to Nelumbium, because I think this was the exact plant that amazed me with the size of its seed, and which A. De Candolle mentioned as an incredible example of almost impossible transport. I now find, to my surprise, that herons do sometimes eat {illegible} fruit, and grebes feed on seeds of Compositae.

Many thanks for offer of help about a grant for the Abstract; but I should hope it would sell enough to pay expenses.

Thanks a lot for the offer to help with a grant for the Abstract, but I hope it sells enough to cover the costs.

I am reading your letter and scribbling as I go on.

I’m reading your letter and jotting down my thoughts as I go.

Your oak and chestnut case seems very curious; is it not the more so as beeches have gone to, or come from the south? But I vehemently protest against you or any one making such cases especial marvels, without you are prepared to say why each species in any flora is twice or thrice, etc., rarer than each other species which grows in the same soil. The more I think, the more evident is it to me how utterly ignorant we are of the thousand contingencies on which range, frequency, and extinction of each species depend.

Your oak and chestnut collection seems really interesting; isn't it even more so considering that beeches have moved to or from the south? But I strongly object to you or anyone treating such collections as extraordinary, unless you're ready to explain why each species in any ecosystem is two or three times, etc., rarer than other species that grow in the same soil. The more I reflect on this, the clearer it becomes to me how completely unaware we are of the countless factors that influence the distribution, prevalence, and extinction of each species.

I have sometimes thought, from Edentata (70/5. No doubt a slip of the pen for Monotremata.) and Marsupialia, that Australia retains a remnant of the former and ancient state of the fauna of the world, and I suppose that you are coming to some such conclusion for plants; but is not the relation between the Cape and Australia too special for such views? I infer from your writings that the relation is too special between Fuegia and Australia to allow us to look at the resemblances in certain plants as the relics of mundane resemblances. On the other hand, {have} not the Sandwich Islands in the Northern Hemisphere some odd relations to Australia? When we are dead and gone what a noble subject will be Geographical Distribution!

I have sometimes thought, looking at Edentata (70/5. Probably a typo for Monotremata) and Marsupialia, that Australia holds on to a remnant of the former and ancient state of the world's fauna, and I guess you might be arriving at a similar conclusion for plants. But isn't the connection between the Cape and Australia too unique for such ideas? From your writings, I gather that the link between Fuegia and Australia is too distinct to consider the similarities in some plants as merely remnants of global resemblances. On the other hand, don’t the Sandwich Islands in the Northern Hemisphere have some strange connections to Australia? When we’re gone, what a fascinating topic Geographical Distribution will be!

You may say what you like, but you will never convince me that I do not owe you ten times as much as you can owe me. Farewell, my dear Hooker. I am sorry to hear that you are both unwell with influenza. Do not bother yourself in answering anything in this, except your general impression on the battle between N. and S.

You can say whatever you want, but you'll never persuade me that I don't owe you ten times more than you owe me. Goodbye, my dear Hooker. I'm sorry to hear that you're both feeling sick with the flu. Don't worry about replying to anything in this, except for your overall thoughts on the fight between the North and the South.

CHAPTER 1.III.—EVOLUTION, 1859-1863.

LETTER 71. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 6th, 1859.

I this morning received your pleasant and friendly note of November 30th. The first part of my MS. is in Murray's hands to see if he likes to publish it. There is no preface, but a short introduction, which must be read by every one who reads my book. The second paragraph in the introduction (71/1. "Origin of Species," Edition I., 1859, pages 1 and 2.) I have had copied verbatim from my foul copy, and you will, I hope, think that I have fairly noticed your paper in the "Linn. Journal." (71/2. "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties, and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection." By Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. Communicated by Sir Charles Lyell and J.D. Hooker. "Journ. Linn. Soc." Volume III., page 45, 1859. (Read July 1st, 1858.)) You must remember that I am now publishing only an abstract, and I give no references. I shall, of course, allude to your paper on distribution (71/3. "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species" (A.R. Wallace). "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XVI., page 184, 1855. The law alluded to is thus stated by Wallace: "Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species" (loc. cit., page 186).); and I have added that I know from correspondence that your explanation of your law is the same as that which I offer. You are right, that I came to the conclusion that selection was the principle of change from the study of domesticated productions; and then, reading Malthus, I saw at once how to apply this principle. Geographical distribution and geological relations of extinct to recent inhabitants of South America first led me to the subject: especially the case of the Galapagos Islands. I hope to go to press in the early part of next month. It will be a small volume of about five hundred pages or so. I will of course send you a copy. I forget whether I told you that Hooker, who is our best British botanist and perhaps the best in the world, is a full convert, and is now going immediately to publish his confession of faith; and I expect daily to see proof-sheets. (71/4. "The Flora of Australia, etc., an Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania." London 1859.) Huxley is changed, and believes in mutation of species: whether a convert to us, I do not quite know. We shall live to see all the younger men converts. My neighbour and an excellent naturalist, J. Lubbock, is an enthusiastic convert. I see that you are doing great work in the Archipelago; and most heartily do I sympathise with you. For God's sake take care of your health. There have been few such noble labourers in the cause of Natural Science as you are.

I received your nice and friendly note from November 30th this morning. The first part of my manuscript is with Murray to see if he's interested in publishing it. There’s no preface, just a short introduction that everyone who reads my book should check out. The second paragraph in the introduction (71/1. "Origin of Species," Edition I., 1859, pages 1 and 2.) I’ve copied word for word from my rough draft, and I hope you think I’ve acknowledged your paper in the "Linn. Journal." (71/2. "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties, and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection." By Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. Communicated by Sir Charles Lyell and J.D. Hooker. "Journ. Linn. Soc." Volume III., page 45, 1859. (Read July 1st, 1858.)) Remember, I’m only publishing a summary, and I’m not including any references. I will mention your paper on distribution (71/3. "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species" (A.R. Wallace). "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XVI., page 184, 1855. The law mentioned by Wallace is stated as: "Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species" (loc. cit., page 186).); and I’ve added that I know from our correspondence that your explanation of your law aligns with mine. You’re right that I concluded that selection was the principle of change from studying domesticated species. Then, after reading Malthus, I immediately saw how to apply this principle. The geographical distribution and geological connections between extinct and recent species in South America first got me interested, especially the case of the Galapagos Islands. I hope to go to press early next month. It will be a small volume of about five hundred pages. I’ll definitely send you a copy. I can’t remember if I mentioned that Hooker, our best British botanist and perhaps the best in the world, is a full convert and is about to publish his statement of beliefs; I expect to see proof sheets any day now. (71/4. "The Flora of Australia, etc., an Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania." London 1859.) Huxley has changed his views and believes in species mutation; whether he’s a full convert, I’m not entirely sure. We’re going to see all the younger guys convert in time. My neighbor and a great naturalist, J. Lubbock, is an enthusiastic convert. I see you’re doing amazing work in the Archipelago, and I wholeheartedly support you. For God's sake, take care of your health. There have been few such noble workers in the field of Natural Science as you.

P.S. You cannot tell how I admire your spirit, in the manner in which you have taken all that was done about publishing all our papers. I had actually written a letter to you, stating that I would not publish anything before you had published. I had not sent that letter to the post when I received one from Lyell and Hooker, urging me to send some MS. to them, and allow them to act as they thought fair and honestly to both of us; and I did so.

P.S. I can’t express enough how much I admire your attitude towards everything that happened with publishing all our papers. I actually wrote you a letter saying I wouldn’t publish anything until you had published yours. I hadn’t mailed that letter yet when I got one from Lyell and Hooker, asking me to send them some manuscripts so they could handle it fairly and honestly for both of us; and I went ahead and did that.

(71/5. The following is the passage from the Introduction to the "Origin of Species," referred to in the first paragraph of the above letter.)

(71/5. The following is the passage from the Introduction to the "Origin of Species," mentioned in the first paragraph of the letter above.)

"My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three years more to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this Abstract. I have more especially been induced to do this, as Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the Natural History of the Malay Archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions that I have on the origin of species. Last year he sent to me a memoir on this subject, with a request that I would forward it to Sir Charles Lyell, who sent it to the Linnean Society, and it is published in the third volume of the Journal of that Society. Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my work—the latter having read my sketch of 1844—honoured me by thinking it advisable to publish, with Mr. Wallace's excellent memoir, some brief extracts from my manuscripts."

"My work is almost done, but since it will take me another two or three years to finish, and my health isn't great, I've been encouraged to publish this Abstract. I was especially motivated to do this because Mr. Wallace, who is currently studying the natural history of the Malay Archipelago, has reached almost the same conclusions that I have about the origin of species. Last year, he sent me a paper on this topic and asked me to forward it to Sir Charles Lyell, who then sent it to the Linnean Society, and it was published in the third volume of their Journal. Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who were both aware of my work—the latter having read my outline from 1844—honored me by suggesting that we publish, along with Mr. Wallace's excellent paper, some brief excerpts from my manuscripts."

LETTER 72. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 3rd, 1859.

With respect to reversion, I have been raking up vague recollections of vague facts; and the impression on my mind is rather more in favour of reversion than it was when you were here.

With regard to reversion, I've been digging up blurry memories of unclear details; and my impression now leans a bit more towards reversion than it did when you were here.

In my abstract (72/1. "The Origin of Species.") I give only a paragraph on the general case of reversion, though I enter in detail on some cases of reversion of a special character. I have not as yet put all my facts on this subject in mass, so can come to no definite conclusion. But as single characters may revert, I must say that I see no improbability in several reverting. As I do not believe any well-founded experiments or facts are known, each must form his opinion from vague generalities. I think you confound two rather distinct considerations; a variation arises from any cause, and reversion is not opposed to this, but solely to its inheritance. Not but what I believe what we must call perhaps a dozen distinct laws are all struggling against each other in every variation which ever arises. To give my impression, if I were forced to bet whether or not, after a hundred generations of growth in a poor sandy soil, a cauliflower and red cabbage would or would not revert to the same form, I must say I would rather stake my money that they would. But in such a case the conditions of life are changed (and here comes the question of direct influence of condition), and there is to be no selection, the comparatively sudden effect of man's selection are left to the free play of reversion.

In my summary (72/1. "The Origin of Species.") I provide only a paragraph on the general idea of reversion, although I discuss some specific cases of reversion in detail. I haven't yet gathered all my data on this topic, so I can't draw any definite conclusions. However, since single traits can revert, I believe there's no unlikelihood in several traits reversing as well. Because I don’t think any solid experiments or facts are known, everyone has to form their opinions based on vague generalities. I think you're mixing up two different ideas; variation comes from any cause, and reversion isn't opposed to this, but only to its inheritance. That said, I believe we have about a dozen distinct laws all competing with each other in every variation that comes up. To share my thoughts, if I had to bet on whether, after a hundred generations of growth in poor sandy soil, a cauliflower and red cabbage would revert to the same form, I would lean towards the idea that they would. But in that situation, the living conditions are changed (and this brings up the issue of the direct influence of conditions), and there would be no selection, allowing the relatively quick effects of human selection to give way to the free play of reversion.

In short, I dare not come to any conclusion without comparing all facts which I have collected, and I do not think there are many.

In short, I won't reach any conclusions without comparing all the facts I've gathered, and I believe there aren't many.

Please do not say to any one that I thought my book on species would be fairly popular and have a fairly remunerative sale (which was the height of my ambition), for if it prove a dead failure it would make me the more ridiculous.

Please don't tell anyone that I thought my book on species would be somewhat popular and have a decent sales success (which was my ultimate goal), because if it turns out to be a complete flop, it will only make me look even more foolish.

LETTER 73. TO W.H. MILLER. Down, June 5th {1859}.

I thank you much for your letter. Had I seen the interest of my remark I would have made many more measurements, though I did make several. I stated the facts merely to give the general reader an idea of the thickness of the walls. (73/1. The walls of bees' cells: see Letter 173.)

I really appreciate your letter. If I had realized how interesting my comment was, I would have taken many more measurements, although I did take a few. I mentioned the facts just to give the average reader a sense of how thick the walls are. (73/1. The walls of bees' cells: see Letter 173.)

Especially if I had seen that the fact had any general bearing, I should have stated that as far as I could measure, the walls are by no means perfectly of the same thickness. Also I should have stated that the chief difference is when the thickness of walls of the upper part of the hexagon and of the pyramidal basal plates are contrasted. Will you oblige me by looking with a strong lens at the bit of comb, brushing off with a knife the upper thickened edges, and then compare, by eye alone, the thickness of the walls there with the thickness of the basal plates, as seen in any cross section. I should very much like to hear whether, even in this way, the difference is not perceptible. It is generally thus perceptible by comparing the thickness of the walls of the hexagon (if not taken very close to the angle) near to the basal plates, where the comparison by eye is of course easier. Your letter actually turned me sick with panic; from not seeing any great importance {in the} fact, till I looked at my notes, I did not remember that I made several measurements. I have now repeated the same measurements, roughly with the same general results, but the difference, I think, is hardly double.

If I had realized that this fact had broader implications, I would have mentioned that, as far as I can tell, the walls are definitely not all the same thickness. The main difference is when you compare the thickness of the walls in the upper part of the hexagon to that of the pyramidal base plates. Could you do me a favor and take a close look at that piece of comb with a strong lens? Carefully scrape off the thick edges with a knife, and then compare the wall thickness with the thickness of the base plates, as visible in any cross-section. I’d really like to know if the difference is noticeable this way. It's usually perceptible when you compare the wall thickness of the hexagon (if you’re not too close to the corners) near the base plates, where it’s obviously easier to make a visual comparison. Your letter actually made me feel sick with anxiety; I didn’t think the fact was that important until I checked my notes and realized I had taken several measurements. I’ve now repeated those measurements, and they seem to yield similar results, but I believe the difference is probably not even double.

I should not have mentioned the thickness of the basal plates at all, had I not thought it would give an unfair notion of the thickness of the walls to state the lesser measurements alone.

I shouldn’t have even brought up the thickness of the basal plates if I didn’t think it would give a misleading impression of the wall thickness to only mention the smaller measurements.

LETTER 74. TO W.H. MILLER. {1859}

I had no thought that you would measure the thickness of the walls of the cells; but if you will, and allow me to give your measurements, it will be an immense advantage. As it is no trouble, I send more specimens. If you measure, please observe that I measured the thickness of the walls of the hexagonal prisms not very near the base; but from your very interesting remarks the lower part of the walls ought to be measured.

I didn't expect you to check the thickness of the walls of the cells; but if you do and let me provide your measurements, it will be a huge advantage. Since it's no trouble, I'm sending more samples. If you measure, please note that I measured the thickness of the walls of the hexagonal prisms not too close to the base; however, based on your very interesting comments, the lower part of the walls should be measured.

Thank you for the suggestion about how bees judge of angles and distances. I will keep it in mind. It is a complete perplexity to me, and yet certainly insects can rudely somehow judge of distance. There are special difficulties on account of the gradation in size between the worker-scells and the larger drone-cells. I am trying to test the case practically by getting combs of different species, and of our own bee from different climates. I have lately had some from the W. Indies of our common bee, but the cells SEEM certainly to be larger; but they have not yet been carefully measured. I will keep your suggestion in mind whenever I return to experiments on living bees; but that will not be soon.

Thank you for the suggestion about how bees perceive angles and distances. I will remember it. It completely puzzles me, but it seems insects can somehow judge distance in a rough way. There are specific challenges due to the size difference between the worker cells and the larger drone cells. I’m trying to test this practically by collecting combs from different species and our own bees from various climates. I’ve recently obtained some combs from the West Indies of our common bee, and the cells definitely seem larger; however, they haven't been measured carefully yet. I will keep your suggestion in mind whenever I return to experiments on live bees, but that won’t be anytime soon.

As you have been considering my little discussion in relation to Lord Brougham (74/1. Lord Brougham's paper on "The Mathematical Structure of Bees' Cells," read before the National Institute of France in May, 1858.), and as I have been more vituperated for this part than for almost any other, I should like just to tell you how I think the case stands. The discussion viewed by itself is worth little more than the paper on which it is printed, except in so far as it contains three or four certainly new facts. But to those who are inclined to believe the general truth of the conclusion that species and their instincts are slowly modified by what I call Natural Selection, I think my discussion nearly removes a very great difficulty. I believe in its truth chiefly from the existence of the Melipona, which makes a comb so intermediate in structure between that of the humble and hive-bee, and especially from the new and curious fact of the bees making smooth cups or saucers when they excavated in a thick piece of wax, which saucers stood so close that hexagons were built on their intersecting edges. And, lastly, because when they excavated on a thin slip of wax, the excavation on both sides of similar smooth basins was stopped, and flat planes left between the nearly opposed basins. If my view were wholly false these cases would, I think, never have occurred. Sedgwick and Co. may abuse me to their hearts' content, but I shall as yet continue to think that mine is a rational explanation (as far as it goes) of their method of work.

As you've been thinking about my little discussion regarding Lord Brougham (74/1. Lord Brougham's paper on "The Mathematical Structure of Bees' Cells," presented at the National Institute of France in May 1858.), and since I've faced more criticism for this part than for almost anything else, I want to share my perspective on the matter. The discussion on its own isn't worth much more than the paper it's based on, except for the fact that it includes three or four definitely new findings. But for those who are inclined to believe that species and their instincts are slowly changed by what I refer to as Natural Selection, I think my discussion largely clears up a significant challenge. I believe in its validity mainly because of the existence of the Melipona, which has a comb structure that’s intermediate between that of the humble bee and the hive bee. This is especially supported by the new and interesting fact that bees create smooth cups or saucers when they dig into a thick piece of wax, with these saucers positioned so closely that hexagons form along their intersecting edges. Lastly, when they work on a thin piece of wax, the excavations on both sides of similar smooth basins are halted, leaving flat planes between the almost opposing basins. If my view were entirely incorrect, these instances, I think, would never have happened. Sedgwick and others can criticize me as much as they like, but I still believe that mine is a reasonable explanation (as far as it goes) of their method of working.

LETTER 75. TO W.H. MILLER.

Down, December 1st {1859}.

Down, December 1, 1859.

Some months ago you were so kind as to say you would measure the thickness of the walls of the basal and side plates of the cell of the bee. Could you find time to do so soon? Why I want it soon, is that I have lately heard from Murray that he sold at his sale far more copies than he has of the "Origin of Species," and that I must immediately prepare a new edition, which I am now correcting. By the way, I hear from Murray that all the attacks heaped on my book do not seem to have at all injured the sale, which will make poor dear old Sedgwick groan. If the basal plates and walls do differ considerably in thickness, as they certainly did in the one or two cells which I measured without particular care (as I never thought the point of any importance), will you tell me the bearing of the fact as simply as you can, for the chance of one so stupid as I am in geometry being able to understand?

A few months ago, you kindly offered to measure the thickness of the walls of the basal and side plates of the bee's cell. Could you find the time to do that soon? The reason I'm asking for it quickly is that I recently learned from Murray that he sold far more copies at his sale than he has of the "Origin of Species," and I need to prepare a new edition immediately, which I’m currently correcting. By the way, I’ve heard from Murray that all the criticisms directed at my book haven’t really hurt its sales, which will certainly upset poor old Sedgwick. If the basal plates and walls vary a lot in thickness, as they did in the one or two cells I measured without much care (since I didn’t think it was important), could you explain the significance of that fact in a straightforward way? I need it to be simple enough for someone as bad at geometry as I am to understand.

Would the greater thickness of the basal plates and of the rim of the hexagons be a good adaptation to carry the vertical weight of the cells filled with honey and supporting clusters of living bees?

Would the increased thickness of the basal plates and the edges of the hexagons be a good adaptation for supporting the vertical weight of the cells filled with honey and holding clusters of live bees?

Will you endeavour to screw out time and grant me this favour?

Will you try to find some time and do me this favor?

P.S. If the result of your measurement of the thickness of the walls turns out at all what I have asserted, would it not be worth while to write a little bit of a paper on the subject of your former note; and "pluck" the bees if they deserve this degradation? Many mathematicians seem to have thought the subject worthy of attention. When the cells are full of honey and hang vertically they have to support a great weight. Can the thicker basal plates be a contrivance to give strength to the whole comb, with less consumption of wax, than if all the sides of the hexagons were thickened?

P.S. If your measurement of the wall thickness matches what I've said, wouldn't it be worthwhile to write a brief paper about your earlier note? And should we "pluck" the bees if they really deserve this treatment? Many mathematicians seem to find this topic intriguing. When the cells are filled with honey and hang downward, they have to bear a significant weight. Could the thicker base plates be a design feature that provides strength to the entire comb while using less wax than if all the sides of the hexagons were thickened?

This crude notion formerly crossed my mind; but of course it is beyond me even to conjecture how the case would be.

This basic idea used to occur to me; but obviously, I can't even guess what the situation would be.

A mathematician, Mr. Wright, has been writing on the geometry of bee-cells in the United States in consequence of my book; but I can hardly understand his paper. (75/1. Chauncey Wright, "Remarks on the Architecture of Bees" ("Amer. Acad. Proc." IV., 1857-60, page 432.)

A mathematician, Mr. Wright, has been writing about the geometry of bee cells in the United States because of my book; but I can barely understand his paper. (75/1. Chauncey Wright, "Remarks on the Architecture of Bees" ("Amer. Acad. Proc." IV., 1857-60, page 432.)

LETTER 76. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(76/1. The date of this letter is unfortunately doubtful, otherwise it would prove that at an early date he was acquainted with Erasmus Darwin's views on evolution, a fact which has not always been recognised. We can hardly doubt that it was written in 1859, for at this time Mr. Huxley was collecting facts about breeding for his lecture given at the Royal Institution on February 10th, 1860, on "Species and Races and their Origin." See "Life and Letters," II., page 281.)

(76/1. The date of this letter is unfortunately unclear; otherwise, it would show that he was familiar with Erasmus Darwin's views on evolution at an early stage, a fact that hasn't always been acknowledged. We can hardly doubt that it was written in 1859 since Mr. Huxley was gathering information about breeding for his lecture at the Royal Institution on February 10th, 1860, titled "Species and Races and their Origin." See "Life and Letters," II., page 281.)

Down {June?} 9 {1859?}.

Down June 9, 1859.

If on the 11th you have half an hour to spare, you might like to see a very good show of pigeons, and the enclosed card will admit you.

If you have half an hour free on the 11th, you might want to check out a great pigeon show, and the attached card will get you in.

The history of error is quite unimportant, but it is curious to observe how exactly and accurately my grandfather (in "Zoonomia," Volume I., page 504, 1794) gives Lamarck's theory. I will quote one sentence. Speaking of birds' beaks, he says: "All which seem to have been gradually produced during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to supply the want of food, and to have been delivered to their posterity with constant improvement of them for the purposes required." Lamarck published "Hist. Zoolog." in 1809. The "Zoonomia" was translated into many languages.

The history of mistakes isn't really important, but it's interesting to see how precisely my grandfather (in "Zoonomia," Volume I, page 504, 1794) describes Lamarck's theory. I’ll quote one line. Discussing birds' beaks, he says: "All which seem to have been gradually produced during many generations by the continuous efforts of the creatures to satisfy their need for food, and to have been passed down to their offspring with constant improvement for the purposes required." Lamarck published "Hist. Zoolog." in 1809. The "Zoonomia" was translated into many languages.

LETTER 77. TO C. LYELL. Down, 28 {June 1859}.

It is not worth while troubling you, but my conscience is uneasy at having forgotten to thank you for your "Etna" (77/1. "On the Structure of Lavas which have been consolidated on Steep Slopes, with remarks on the Mode of Origin of Mount Etna, and on the Theory of 'Craters of Elevation'" ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume CXLVIII., 1858, page 703).), which seems to me a magnificent contribution to volcanic geology, and I should think you might now rest on your oars in this department.

It's probably not worth bothering you, but I feel guilty for forgetting to thank you for your "Etna" (77/1. "On the Structure of Lavas which have been consolidated on Steep Slopes, with remarks on the Mode of Origin of Mount Etna, and on the Theory of 'Craters of Elevation'" ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume CXLVIII., 1858, page 703).), which I believe is an excellent contribution to volcanic geology, and I think you could take a break in this area now.

As soon as ever I can get a copy of my book (77/2. "The Origin of Species," London, 1859.) ready, in some six weeks' or two months' time, it shall be sent you; and if you approve of it, even to a moderate extent, it will be the highest satisfaction which I shall ever receive for an amount of labour which no one will ever appreciate.

As soon as I can get a copy of my book (77/2. "The Origin of Species," London, 1859.) ready, which should be in about six weeks to two months, I’ll send it to you; and if you like it, even just a little, it will be the greatest satisfaction I could ever receive for a level of work that no one else will ever fully appreciate.

LETTER 78. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(78/1. The reference in the following letter is to the proofs of Hooker's "Australian Flora.")

Down, 28 {July 1859}.

Down, 28 July 1859.

The returned sheet is chiefly that which I received in MS. Parts seem to me (though perhaps it may be forgetfulness) much improved, and I retain my former impression that the whole discussion on the Australian flora is admirably good and original. I know you will understand and not object to my thus expressing my opinion (for one must form one) so presumptuously. I have no criticisms, except perhaps I should like you somewhere to say, when you refer to me, that you refer only to the notice in the "Linnean Journal;" not that, on my deliberate word of honour, I expect that you will think more favourably of the whole than of the suggestion in the "Journal." I am far more than satisfied at what you say of my work; yet it would be as well to avoid the appearance of your remarks being a criticism on my fuller work.

The returned sheet is mainly what I got in the manuscript. Some parts seem to me (though maybe it’s just forgetfulness) a lot better, and I still think the entire discussion on the Australian flora is excellent and original. I know you’ll understand and won’t mind my sharing my opinion like this (because one has to have an opinion). I don’t have any criticisms, except I’d like you to mention somewhere, when you refer to me, that you’re talking only about the notice in the "Linnean Journal;" not that, on my word of honor, I expect you to think more positively about the whole thing than about the suggestion in the "Journal." I’m very pleased with what you say about my work; still, it would be better to avoid giving the impression that your remarks are a criticism of my more extensive work.

I am very sorry to hear you are so hard-worked. I also get on very slowly, and have hardly as yet finished half my volume...I returned on last Tuesday from a week's hydropathy.

I’m really sorry to hear you’re so overworked. I also take my time and have barely finished half of my volume... I got back last Tuesday from a week of hydrotherapy.

Take warning by me, and do not work too hard. For God's sake, think of this.

Take my advice and don't work too hard. For heaven's sake, consider this.

It is dreadfully uphill work with me getting my confounded volume finished.

It’s really tough for me to get my frustrating book finished.

I wish you well through all your labours. Adios.

I wish you the best in everything you do. Goodbye.

LETTER 79. TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 29th {1859}.

This shall be such an extraordinary note as you have never received from me, for it shall not contain one single question or request. I thank you for your impression on my views. Every criticism from a good man is of value to me. What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work will be grievously hypothetical, and large parts by no means worthy of being called induction, my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts. I had not thought of your objection of my using the term "natural selection" as an agent. I use it much as a geologist does the word denudation—for an agent, expressing the result of several combined actions. I will take care to explain, not merely by inference, what I mean by the term; for I must use it, otherwise I should incessantly have to expand it into some such (here miserably expressed) formula as the following: "The tendency to the preservation (owing to the severe struggle for life to which all organic beings at some time or generation are exposed) of any, the slightest, variation in any part, which is of the slightest use or favourable to the life of the individual which has thus varied; together with the tendency to its inheritance." Any variation, which was of no use whatever to the individual, would not be preserved by this process of "natural selection." But I will not weary you by going on, as I do not suppose I could make my meaning clearer without large expansion. I will only add one other sentence: several varieties of sheep have been turned out together on the Cumberland mountains, and one particular breed is found to succeed so much better than all the others that it fairly starves the others to death. I should here say that natural selection picks out this breed, and would tend to improve it, or aboriginally to have formed it...

This will be an extraordinary note unlike any you've received from me, because it won’t include a single question or request. I appreciate your feedback on my views. Every critique from a good person means a lot to me. What you generally hint at is very true: my work will often be quite hypothetical, and much of it isn’t really worthy of the term induction. My most common mistake is probably drawing conclusions from too few facts. I hadn’t considered your objection to my use of the term "natural selection" as an agent. I use it much like a geologist uses the word denudation—as an agent that describes the outcome of several combined processes. I’ll make sure to clarify, not just imply, what I mean by the term; I have to use it, or else I would constantly need to expand it into some lengthy (and poorly expressed) formulation like this: "The tendency to preserve (due to the intense struggle for survival that all living beings face at some point) any slight variation in any part that is the least bit beneficial or advantageous to the individual that has varied; along with the tendency for that variation to be inherited." Any variation that doesn’t benefit the individual wouldn’t be preserved through this process of "natural selection." But I won’t bore you with more details, as I doubt I could clarify my point without extending it significantly. I’ll just add one more thing: several breeds of sheep have been brought to the Cumberland mountains, and one particular breed is found to do so much better than the others that it practically starves them out. I should mention that natural selection favors this breed and would aim to enhance it, or originally may have shaped it...

You speak of species not having any material base to rest on, but is this any greater hardship than deciding what deserves to be called a variety, and be designated by a Greek letter? When I was at systematic work, I know I longed to have no other difficulty (great enough) than deciding whether the form was distinct enough to deserve a name, and not to be haunted with undefined and unanswerable questions whether it was a true species. What a jump it is from a well-marked variety, produced by natural cause, to a species produced by the separate act of the hand of God! But I am running on foolishly. By the way, I met the other day Phillips, the palaeontologist, and he asked me, "How do you define a species?" I answered, "I cannot." Whereupon he said, "at last I have found out the only true definition,—any form which has ever had a specific name!"...

You talk about species not having a solid foundation to rely on, but is that any tougher than deciding what qualifies as a variety and getting a Greek letter attached to it? When I was working on classification, I often wished my only challenge (which was considerable) was figuring out whether a form was distinct enough to earn a name, rather than being plagued by vague and unresolvable questions about whether it was a true species. It's quite a leap from a clearly defined variety, caused by natural events, to a species created by a direct act of God! Anyway, I'm rambling. By the way, I ran into Phillips, the paleontologist, the other day, and he asked me, "How do you define a species?" I replied, "I can't." Then he said, "Finally, I've discovered the only true definition—any form that has ever had a specific name!"

LETTER 80. TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, October 31st {1859}.

LETTER 80. TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, October 31, 1859.

That you may not misunderstand how far I go with Pallas and his many disciples I should like to add that, though I believe that our domestic dogs have descended from several wild forms, and though I must think that the sterility, which they would probably have evinced, if crossed before being domesticated, has been eliminated, yet I go but a very little way with Pallas & Co. in their belief in the importance of the crossing and blending of the aboriginal stocks. (80/1. "With our domesticated animals, the various races when crossed together are quite fertile; yet in many cases they are descended from two or more wild species. From this fact we must conclude either that the aboriginal parent-species at first produced perfectly fertile hybrids, or that the hybrids subsequently reared under domestication became quite fertile. This latter alternative, which was first propounded by Pallas, seems by far the most probable, and can, indeed, hardly be doubted" ("Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 240).) You will see this briefly put in the first chapter. Generally, with respect to crossing, the effects may be diametrically opposite. If you cross two very distinct races, you may make (not that I believe such has often been made) a third and new intermediate race; but if you cross two exceedingly close races, or two slightly different individuals of the same race, then in fact you annul and obliterate the difference. In this latter way I believe crossing is all-important, and now for twenty years I have been working at flowers and insects under this point of view. I do not like Hooker's terms, centripetal and centrifugal (80/2. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," pages viii. and ix.): they remind me of Forbes' bad term of Polarity. (80/3. Forbes, "On the Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of Organised Beings in Time."—"R. Institution Proc." I., 1851-54.)

To avoid any misunderstanding about my stance on Pallas and his many followers, I want to clarify that while I believe our domestic dogs originated from various wild ancestors, and I think the sterility they would likely have shown if crossed before domestication has been resolved, I only partially agree with Pallas & Co. regarding the significance of mixing and blending the original stocks. (80/1. "With our domesticated animals, the various races when crossed together are quite fertile; yet in many cases they are descended from two or more wild species. From this fact we must conclude either that the aboriginal parent-species at first produced perfectly fertile hybrids, or that the hybrids subsequently reared under domestication became quite fertile. This latter alternative, which was first suggested by Pallas, seems by far the most likely, and can hardly be doubted." ("Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 240).) You'll find this summarized in the first chapter. Generally speaking, the effects of crossing can be completely opposite. If you cross two very distinct races, you might create a new intermediate race (though I don’t think this happens very often); however, if you cross two very similar races or even slightly different individuals from the same race, you actually cancel out the differences. In this latter case, I believe crossing is crucial, and for the past twenty years, I've been studying flowers and insects from this perspective. I’m not a fan of Hooker’s terms, centripetal and centrifugal (80/2. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," pages viii. and ix.): they remind me of Forbes' poor term, Polarity. (80/3. Forbes, "On the Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of Organised Beings in Time."—"R. Institution Proc." I., 1851-54.)

I daresay selection by man would generally work quicker than Natural Selection; but the important distinction between them is, that man can scarcely select except external and visible characters, and secondly, he selects for his own good; whereas under nature, characters of all kinds are selected exclusively for each creature's own good, and are well exercised; but you will find all this in Chapter IV.

I must say, human selection usually works faster than natural selection; however, the key difference between the two is that humans can mostly choose only external and visible traits, and they select for their own benefit. In contrast, in nature, all kinds of traits are chosen strictly for the benefit of each creature, and these traits are well-utilized. But you'll find all of this in Chapter IV.

Although the hound, greyhound, and bull-dog may possibly have descended from three distinct stocks, I am convinced that their present great amount of difference is mainly due to the same causes which have made the breeds of pigeons so different from each other, though these breeds of pigeons have all descended from one wild stock; so that the Pallasian doctrine I look at as but of quite secondary importance.

Although the hound, greyhound, and bulldog may have originated from three separate breeds, I believe that the significant differences among them today are primarily due to the same factors that have led to the various breeds of pigeons being so different from one another, even though all these pigeon breeds come from a single wild ancestor; therefore, I consider the Pallasian theory to be of only minor importance.

In my bigger book I have explained my meaning fully; whether I have in the Abstract I cannot remember.

In my larger book, I've explained my thoughts in detail; I can't recall if I did that in the Abstract.

LETTER 81. TO C. LYELL. {December 5th, 1859.}

I forget whether you take in the "Times;" for the chance of your not doing so, I send the enclosed rich letter. (81/1. See the "Times," December 1st and December 5th, 1859: two letters signed "Senex," dealing with "Works of Art in the Drift.") It is, I am sure, by Fitz-Roy...It is a pity he did not add his theory of the extinction of Mastodon, etc., from the door of the Ark being made too small. (81/2. A postscript to this letter, here omitted, is published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 240.)

I can't remember if you read the "Times;" just in case you don't, I'm sending you the attached insightful letter. (81/1. See the "Times," December 1st and December 5th, 1859: two letters signed "Senex," discussing "Works of Art in the Drift.") I'm sure it's by Fitz-Roy... It's unfortunate he didn't include his theory about the extinction of the Mastodon, etc., being due to the Ark's door being too small. (81/2. A postscript to this letter, here omitted, is published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 240.)

LETTER 82. FRANCIS GALTON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 42, Rutland Gate, London, S.W., December 9th, 1859.

Pray let me add a word of congratulation on the completion of your wonderful volume, to those which I am sure you will have received from every side. I have laid it down in the full enjoyment of a feeling that one rarely experiences after boyish days, of having been initiated into an entirely new province of knowledge, which, nevertheless, connects itself with other things in a thousand ways. I hear you are engaged on a second edition. There is a trivial error in page 68, about rhinoceroses (82/1. Down (loc. cit.) says that neither the elephant nor the rhinoceros is destroyed by beasts of prey. Mr. Galton wrote that the wild dogs hunt the young rhinoceros and "exhaust them to death; they pursue them all day long, tearing at their ears, the only part their teeth can fasten on." The reference to the rhinoceros is omitted in later editions of the "Origin."), which I thought I might as well point out, and have taken advantage of the same opportunity to scrawl down half a dozen other notes, which may, or may not, be worthless to you.

Please let me add a word of congratulations on finishing your incredible book, which I’m sure you’ve received messages about from every direction. I set it down feeling something rarely experienced after childhood—the excitement of diving into a completely new area of knowledge that connects to so many other things in countless ways. I hear you’re working on a second edition. There’s a small error on page 68 regarding rhinoceroses (82/1. Down (loc. cit.) mentions that neither the elephant nor the rhinoceros is harmed by predators. Mr. Galton stated that wild dogs hunt young rhinoceroses and “exhaust them to death; they chase them all day, tearing at their ears, which is the only part their teeth can grip.” The mention of the rhinoceros is left out in later editions of the "Origin."), which I thought I’d point out, and I've also taken the chance to jot down a few other notes that may or may not be helpful to you.

(83/1. The three next letters refer to Huxley's lecture on Evolution, given at the Royal Institution on February 10th, 1860, of which the peroration is given in "Life and Letters," II., page 282, together with some letters on the subject.)

(83/1. The next three letters discuss Huxley's lecture on Evolution, delivered at the Royal Institution on February 10th, 1860, with the conclusion provided in "Life and Letters," II., page 282, along with some letters on the topic.)

LETTER 83. TO T.H. HUXLEY. November 25th {1859}.

LETTER 83. TO T.H. HUXLEY. November 25, 1859.

I rejoice beyond measure at the lecture. I shall be at home in a fortnight, when I could send you splendid folio coloured drawings of pigeons. Would this be in time? If not, I think I could write to my servants and have them sent to you. If I do NOT hear I shall understand that about fifteen or sixteen days will be in time.

I’m incredibly excited about the lecture. I’ll be home in two weeks, and then I could send you some amazing colored drawings of pigeons. Would that be timely? If not, I think I could message my staff and have them sent over to you. If I don’t hear back, I’ll assume that around fifteen or sixteen days will be good enough.

I have had a kind yet slashing letter against me from poor dear old Sedgwick, "who has laughed till his sides ached at my book."

I received a harsh but kind letter from my poor dear friend Sedgwick, "who laughed so hard at my book that his sides hurt."

Phillips is cautious, but decidedly, I fear, hostile. Hurrah for the Lecture—it is grand!

Phillips is careful, but I’m afraid he’s definitely hostile. Hooray for the Lecture—it’s awesome!

LETTER 84. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 13th {1859}.

I have got fine large drawings (84/1. For Mr. Huxley's R.I. lecture.) of the Pouter, Carrier, and Tumbler; I have only drawings in books of Fantails, Barbs, and Scanderoon Runts. If you had them, you would have a grand display of extremes of diversity. Will they pay at the Royal Institution for copying on a large size drawings of these birds? I could lend skulls of a Carrier and a Tumbler (to show the great difference) for the same purpose, but it would not probably be worth while.

I have some great large drawings (84/1. For Mr. Huxley's R.I. lecture.) of the Pouter, Carrier, and Tumbler; I only have book drawings of Fantails, Barbs, and Scanderoon Runts. If you had them, you would have an amazing showcase of extreme diversity. Will the Royal Institution pay for large copies of these bird drawings? I could lend you skulls of a Carrier and a Tumbler (to highlight the significant differences) for the same purpose, but it probably wouldn’t be worth it.

I have been looking at my MS. What you want I believe is about hybridism and breeding. The chapter on hybridism is in a pretty good state—about 150 folio pages with notes and references on the back. My first chapter on breeding is in too bad and imperfect a state to send; but my discussion on pigeons (in about 100 folio pages) is in a pretty good state. I am perfectly convinced that you would never have patience to read such volumes of MS. I speak now in the palace of truth, and pray do you: if you think you would read them I will send them willingly up by my servant, or bring them myself next week. But I have no copy, and I never could possibly replace them; and without you really thought that you would use them, I had rather not risk them. But I repeat I will willingly bring them, if you think you would have the vast patience to use them. Please let me hear on this subject, and whether I shall send the book with small drawings of three other breeds or skulls. I have heard a rumour that Busk is on our side in regard to species. Is this so? It would be very good.

I’ve been looking at my manuscript. What you’re interested in, I believe, is hybridism and breeding. The chapter on hybridism is in pretty good shape—about 150 pages with notes and references on the back. My first chapter on breeding isn’t in good enough shape to send, but my discussion on pigeons (about 100 pages) is in decent condition. I’m convinced that you wouldn’t have the patience to read such lengthy manuscripts. I’m speaking honestly here, and I hope you will too: if you think you would read them, I’d be happy to send them with my servant or bring them myself next week. But I don’t have a copy, and I could never replace them; and unless you genuinely believe you would use them, I’d rather not risk it. But I’ll gladly bring them if you think you have the patience to use them. Please let me know what you think and if I should send the book with small drawings of three other breeds or skulls. I’ve heard a rumor that Busk is on our side regarding species. Is that true? That would be really good.

LETTER 85. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 16th {1859}.

I thank you for your very pleasant and amusing note and invitation to dinner, which I am sorry to say I cannot accept. I shall come up (stomach willing) on Thursday for Phil. Club dinner, and return on Saturday, and I am engaged to my brother for Friday. But I should very much like to call at the Museum on Friday or Saturday morning and see you. Would you let me have one line either here or at 57, Queen Anne Street, to say at what hour you generally come to the Museum, and whether you will be probably there on Friday or Saturday? Even if you are at the Club, it will be a mere chance if we sit near each other.

Thank you for your lovely and entertaining note and dinner invitation, which I'm sorry to say I can't accept. I'll be coming up (if my stomach allows) on Thursday for the Phil. Club dinner and will head back on Saturday, but I'm tied up with my brother on Friday. However, I would really like to stop by the Museum on Friday or Saturday morning to see you. Could you please send me a quick note either here or at 57, Queen Anne Street, letting me know what time you usually arrive at the Museum and if you'll likely be there on Friday or Saturday? Even if you're at the Club, it might just be a coincidence if we end up sitting near each other.

I will bring up the articles on Thursday afternoon, and leave them under charge of the porter at the Museum. They will consist of large drawings of a Pouter, a Carrier, and rather smaller drawings of some sub-varieties (which breed nearly true) of short-faced Tumblers. Also a small drawing of Scanderoon, a kind of Runt, and a very remarkable breed. Also a book with very moderately good drawings of Fantail and Barb, but I very much doubt whether worth the trouble of enlarging.

I’ll bring the articles on Thursday afternoon and leave them with the porter at the Museum. They’ll include large drawings of a Pouter, a Carrier, and smaller drawings of some sub-varieties (which breed pretty true) of short-faced Tumblers. Additionally, there will be a small drawing of a Scanderoon, a type of Runt, and a very noteworthy breed. There will also be a book with fairly decent drawings of Fantail and Barb, but I really doubt it’s worth the effort to enlarge.

Also a box (for Heaven's sake, take care!) with a skull of Carrier and short-faced Tumbler; also lower jaws (largest size) of Runt, middle size of Rock-pigeon, and the broad one of Barb. The form of ramus of jaw differs curiously in these jaws.

Also a box (for heaven's sake, be careful!) with a skull of Carrier and short-faced Tumbler; also lower jaws (largest size) of Runt, medium size of Rock-pigeon, and the broad one of Barb. The shape of the ramus of the jaw varies interestingly in these jaws.

Also MS. of hybridism and pigeons, which will just weary you to death. I will call myself for or send a servant for the MS. and bones whenever you have done with them; but do not hurry.

Also, the manuscript about hybridism and pigeons will just bore you to death. I’ll either come for the manuscript and bones myself or send a servant to pick them up whenever you’re done with them; but don’t rush.

You have hit on the exact plan, which, on the advice of Lyell, Murray, etc., I mean to follow—viz., bring out separate volumes in detail—and I shall begin with domestic productions; but I am determined to try and {work} very slowly, so that, if possible, I may keep in a somewhat better state of health. I had not thought of illustrations; that is capital advice. Farewell, my good and admirable agent for the promulgation of damnable heresies!

You’ve come up with the perfect plan, which I intend to follow based on the advice from Lyell, Murray, and others—specifically, to release separate detailed volumes. I’ll start with domestic productions, but I’m committed to taking my time so that I can hopefully maintain a better state of health. I hadn’t considered illustrations; that’s a great suggestion. Goodbye, my excellent and admirable agent for spreading controversial ideas!

LETTER 86. TO L. HORNER. Down, December 23rd {1859}.

I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your extremely kind letter. I am very much pleased that you approve of my book, and that you are going to pay me the extraordinary compliment of reading it twice. I fear that it is tough reading, but it is beyond my powers to make the subject clearer. Lyell would have done it admirably.

I want to express my gratitude for your very kind letter. I'm really happy to hear that you liked my book and that you're going to give me the amazing compliment of reading it twice. I worry that it's difficult to read, but I can’t make the topic clearer than it is. Lyell would have done it wonderfully.

You must enjoy being a gentlemen at your ease, and I hear that you have returned with ardour to work at the Geological Society. We hope in the course of the winter to persuade Mrs. Horner and yourself and daughters to pay us a visit. Ilkley did me extraordinary good during the latter part of my stay and during my first week at home; but I have gone back latterly to my bad ways, and fear I shall never be decently well and strong.

You must be enjoying being a gentleman at your leisure, and I've heard you’ve eagerly returned to working at the Geological Society. We hope that over the winter, we can convince Mrs. Horner, you, and your daughters to visit us. Ilkley did wonders for me during the last part of my stay and during my first week at home; however, I've recently fallen back into my old habits and worry that I may never feel completely well and strong again.

P.S.—When any of your party write to Mildenhall I should be much obliged if you would say to Bunbury that I hope he will not forget, whenever he reads my book, his promise to let me know what he thinks about it; for his knowledge is so great and accurate that every one must value his opinions highly. I shall be quite contented if his belief in the immutability of species is at all staggered.

P.S.—When any of your group write to Mildenhall, I would really appreciate it if you could remind Bunbury to share his thoughts about my book. His expertise is so vast and precise that everyone holds his opinions in high regard. I would be more than satisfied if his belief in the unchanging nature of species is even slightly shaken.

LETTER 87. TO C. LYELL.

(87/1. In the "Origin of Species" a section of Chapter X. is devoted to "The succession of the same types within the same areas, during the late Tertiary period" (Edition I., page 339). Mr. Darwin wrote as follows: "Mr. Clift many years ago showed that the fossil mammals from the Australian caves were closely allied to the living marsupials of that continent." After citing other instances illustrating the same agreement between fossil and recent types, Mr. Darwin continues: "I was so much impressed with these facts that I strongly insisted, in 1839 and 1845, on this 'law of the succession of types,' on 'this wonderful relationship in the same continent between the dead and the living.' Professor Owen has subsequently extended the same generalisation to the mammals of the Old World.")

(87/1. In the "Origin of Species," a section of Chapter X is dedicated to "The succession of the same types within the same areas, during the late Tertiary period" (Edition I., page 339). Mr. Darwin wrote: "Mr. Clift showed many years ago that the fossil mammals found in Australian caves were closely related to the living marsupials of that continent." After mentioning other examples that illustrate the same connection between fossil and modern types, Mr. Darwin continues: "I was so impressed by these facts that I strongly emphasized, in 1839 and 1845, this 'law of the succession of types,' about 'this amazing relationship in the same continent between the dead and the living.' Professor Owen has since expanded this generalization to the mammals of the Old World.")

Down, {December} 27th {1859}.

Down, December 27, 1859.

Owen wrote to me to ask for the reference to Clift. As my own notes for the late chapters are all in chaos, I bethought me who was the most trustworthy man of all others to look for references, and I answered myself, "Of course Lyell." In the {"Principles of Geology"}, edition of 1833, Volume III., chapter xi., page 144, you will find the reference to Clift in the "Edinburgh New Phil Journal," No. XX., page 394. (87/2. The correct reference to Clift's "Report" on fossil bones from New Holland is "Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," 1831, page 394.) You will also find that you were greatly struck with the fact itself (87/3. This refers to the discovery of recent and fossil species of animals in an Australian cave-breccia. Mr. Clift is quoted as having identified one of the bones, which was much larger than the rest, as that of a hippopotamus.), which I had quite forgotten. I copied the passage, and sent it to Owen. Why I gave in some detail references to my own work is that Owen (not the first occasion with respect to myself and others) quietly ignores my having ever generalised on the subject, and makes a great fuss on more than one occasion at having discovered the law of succession. In fact, this law, with the Galapagos distribution, first turned my mind on the origin of species. My own references are {to the "Naturalist's Voyage"}:

Owen wrote to ask for the reference to Clift. Since my notes for the later chapters are all a mess, I thought about who would be the most reliable person to look for references, and I thought, "Of course, Lyell." In the {"Principles of Geology"}, edition of 1833, Volume III, chapter xi, page 144, you will find the reference to Clift in the "Edinburgh New Phil Journal," No. XX, page 394. (87/2. The correct reference to Clift's "Report" on fossil bones from New Holland is "Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," 1831, page 394.) You'll also see that you were quite taken by the fact itself (87/3. This refers to the discovery of recent and fossil species of animals in an Australian cave-breccia. Mr. Clift is quoted as having identified one of the bones, which was much larger than the others, as that of a hippopotamus.), which I had completely forgotten. I copied the passage and sent it to Owen. The reason I provided detailed references to my own work is that Owen (not the first time regarding myself and others) conveniently ignores that I ever generalized on the subject and makes a big deal on more than one occasion about having discovered the law of succession. In fact, this law, along with the Galapagos distribution, first got me thinking about the origin of species. My own references are {to the "Naturalist's Voyage"}:

     Large 8vo,     Murray,
     Edition 1839   Edition 1845

     Page 210       Page 173        On succession.

     Page 153       Pages 131-32    On splitting up of old
                                    geographical provinces.

     Large 8vo,     Murray,  
     Edition 1839   Edition 1845  
  
     Page 210       Page 173        On succession.  
  
     Page 153       Pages 131-32    On dividing up old  
                                    geographical regions.

Long before Owen published I had in MS. worked out the succession of types in the Old World (as I remember telling Sedgwick, who of course disbelieved it).

Long before Owen published, I had outlined the succession of types in the Old World in my manuscript (as I recall mentioning to Sedgwick, who of course didn't believe it).

Since receiving your last letter on Hooker, I have read his introduction as far as page xxiv (87/4. "On the Flora of Australia, etc.; being an Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania": London, 1859.), where the Australian flora begins, and this latter part I liked most in the proofs. It is a magnificent essay. I doubt slightly about some assertions, or rather should have liked more facts—as, for instance, in regard to species varying most on the confines of their range. Naturally I doubt a little his remarks about divergence (87/5. "Variation is effected by graduated changes; and the tendency of varieties, both in nature and under cultivation, when further varying, is rather to depart more and more widely from the original type than to revert to it." On the margin Darwin wrote: "Without selection doubtful" (loc. cit., page viii).), and about domestic races being produced under nature without selection. It would take much to persuade me that a Pouter Pigeon, or a Carrier, etc., could have been produced by the mere laws of variation without long continued selection, though each little enlargement of crop and beak are due to variation. I demur greatly to his comparison of the products of sinking and rising islands (87/6. "I venture to anticipate that a study of the vegetation of the islands with reference to the peculiarities of the generic types on the one hand, and of the geological conditions (whether as rising or sinking) on the other, may, in the present state of our knowledge, advance other subjects of distribution and variation considerably" (loc. cit., page xv).); in the Indian Ocean he compares exclusively many rising volcanic and sinking coral islands. The latter have a most peculiar soil, and are excessively small in area, and are tenanted by very few species; moreover, such low coral islands have probably been often, during their subsidence, utterly submerged, and restocked by plants from other islands. In the Pacific Ocean the floras of all the best cases are unknown. The comparison ought to have been exclusively between rising and fringed volcanic islands, and sinking and encircled volcanic islands. I have read Naudin (87/7. Naudin, "Revue Horticole," 1852?.), and Hooker agrees that he does not even touch on my views.

Since I got your last letter about Hooker, I’ve read his introduction up to page xxiv (87/4. "On the Flora of Australia, etc.; being an Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania": London, 1859.), where the Australian flora starts, and I found this part the most interesting in the proofs. It's an amazing essay. I have some slight doubts about certain claims, or rather I would have preferred more facts—for example, regarding species that tend to vary the most at the edges of their range. Naturally, I have some skepticism about his comments on divergence (87/5. "Variation is effected by graduated changes; and the tendency of varieties, both in nature and under cultivation, when further varying, is rather to depart more and more widely from the original type than to revert to it." On the margin, Darwin wrote: "Without selection doubtful" (loc. cit., page viii).), and his belief that domestic breeds can arise in nature without selection. I would need a lot of convincing that a Pouter Pigeon or a Carrier, etc., could come about solely through the laws of variation without prolonged selection, although each small change in crop and beak is due to variation. I strongly disagree with his comparison of the outcomes of sinking and rising islands (87/6. "I venture to anticipate that a study of the vegetation of the islands with reference to the peculiarities of the generic types on the one hand, and of the geological conditions (whether as rising or sinking) on the other, may, in the present state of our knowledge, advance other subjects of distribution and variation considerably" (loc. cit., page xv).); in the Indian Ocean, he exclusively compares many rising volcanic and sinking coral islands. The latter have very unique soil, are extremely small, and host very few species; furthermore, these low coral islands have likely been completely submerged during their sinking and repopulated by plants from other islands. In the Pacific Ocean, the floras of all the best cases are unknown. The comparison should have strictly been between rising and fringed volcanic islands, and sinking and encircled volcanic islands. I’ve read Naudin (87/7. Naudin, "Revue Horticole," 1852?), and Hooker agrees that he doesn't even address my views.

LETTER 88. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. {1859 or 1860.}

I have had another talk with Bentham, who is greatly agitated by your book: evidently the stern, keen intellect is aroused, and he finds that it is too late to halt between two opinions. How it will go we shall see. I am intensely interested in what we shall come to, and never broach the subject to him. I finished the geological evidence chapters yesterday; they are very fine and very striking, but I cannot see they are such forcible objections as you still hold them to be. I would say that you still in your secret soul underrate the imperfection of the Geological Record, though no language can be stronger or arguments fairer and sounder against it. Of course I am influenced by Botany, and the conviction that we have not in a fossilised condition a fraction of the plants that have existed, and that not a fraction of those we have are recognisable specifically. I never saw so clearly put the fact that it is not intermediates between existing species we want, but between these and the unknown tertium quid.

I've had another conversation with Bentham, who is really shaken by your book: it's clear that his sharp, analytical mind is stirred up, and he realizes it's too late to waver between two viewpoints. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out. I'm very curious about where this will lead us, and I never bring it up with him. I finished the chapters on geological evidence yesterday; they are very impressive and striking, but I don't think they are as strong of objections as you believe they are. I would argue that deep down, you still underestimate the gaps in the Geological Record, even though no words can be more forceful or arguments fairer and sounder against it. Of course, my views are influenced by Botany and the belief that we have a tiny fraction of the plants that have existed in a fossilized form, and that not even a fraction of those we have are identifiable as specific species. I’ve never seen the point so clearly made that what we need isn't just intermediates between existing species, but between these and the unknown third variable.

You certainly make a hobby of Natural Selection, and probably ride it too hard; that is a necessity of your case. If the improvement of the creation-by-variation doctrine is conceivable, it will be by unburthening your theory of Natural Selection, which at first sight seems overstrained—i.e., to account for too much. I think, too, that some of your difficulties which you override by Natural Selection may give way before other explanations. But, oh Lord! how little we do know and have known to be so advanced in knowledge by one theory. If we thought ourselves knowing dogs before you revealed Natural Selection, what d—d ignorant ones we must surely be now we do know that law.

You definitely have a passion for Natural Selection, and you probably push it too far; that’s a necessity in your argument. If the theory of creation through variation can be improved, it will be by lightening your theory of Natural Selection, which at first glance seems overstretched—meaning it tries to explain too much. I also think that some of your challenges that you solve with Natural Selection may be addressed by other explanations. But, oh man! how little we actually know and have known despite our advancements in knowledge from this one theory. If we thought we understood things before you introduced Natural Selection, how unbelievably ignorant we must be now that we truly understand that law.

I hear you may be at the Club on Thursday. I hope so. Huxley will not be there, so do not come on that ground.

I heard you might be at the Club on Thursday. I hope that's true. Huxley won’t be there, so don’t come for that reason.

LETTER 89. TO T.H. HUXLEY. January 1st {1860}.

I write one line merely to thank you for your pleasant note, and to say that I will keep your secret. I will shake my head as mysteriously as Lord Burleigh. Several persons have asked me who wrote that "most remarkable article" in the "Times." (89/1. The "Times," December 26th, 1859, page 8. The opening paragraphs were by one of the staff of the "Times." See "Life and Letters," II., page 255, for Mr. Huxley's interesting account of his share in the matter.) As a cat may look at a king, so I have said that I strongly suspected you. X was so sharp that the first sentence revealed the authorship. The Z's (God save the mark) thought it was Owen's! You may rely on it that it has made a deep impression, and I am heartily glad that the subject and I owe you this further obligation. But for God's sake, take care of your health; remember that the brain takes years to rest, whilst the muscles take only hours. There is poor Dana, to whom I used to preach by letter, writes to me that my prophecies are come true: he is in Florence quite done up, can read nothing and write nothing, and cannot talk for half an hour. I noticed the "naughty sentence" (89/2. Mr. Huxley, after speaking of the rudimental teeth of the whale, of rudimental jaws in insects which never bite, and rudimental eyes in blind animals, goes on: "And we would remind those who, ignorant of the facts, must be moved by authority, that no one has asserted the incompetence of the doctrine of final causes, in its application to physiology and anatomy, more strongly than our own eminent anatomist, Professor Owen, who, speaking of such cases, says ("On the Nature of Limbs," pages 39, 40), 'I think it will be obvious that the principle of final adaptations fails to satisfy all the conditions of the problem.'"—"The Times," December 26th, 1859.) about Owen, though my wife saw its bearing first. Farewell you best and worst of men!

I’m writing to thank you for your nice note and to let you know that I will keep your secret. I’ll nod mysteriously like Lord Burleigh. Several people have asked me who wrote that "most remarkable article" in the "Times." (89/1. The "Times," December 26th, 1859, page 8. The opening paragraphs were by one of the staff of the "Times." See "Life and Letters," II., page 255, for Mr. Huxley's interesting account of his role in this.) Just as a cat can look at a king, I’ve said that I strongly suspect it was you. X was so sharp that the first sentence gave away the authorship. The Z's (God help us) thought it was Owen's! You can be sure it’s made a big impression, and I’m really glad the topic and I owe you this further thanks. But for heaven's sake, take care of your health; remember that the brain takes years to recover, while muscles need only hours. Poor Dana, to whom I used to preach by letter, writes to tell me that my predictions have come true: he’s in Florence completely worn out, can’t read or write, and can’t talk for half an hour. I noticed the "naughty sentence" (89/2. Mr. Huxley, after discussing the rudimentary teeth of the whale, rudimentary jaws in insects that don’t bite, and rudimentary eyes in blind animals, continues: "And we would remind those who, ignorant of the facts, must be moved by authority, that no one has asserted the incompetence of the doctrine of final causes, in its application to physiology and anatomy, more strongly than our own eminent anatomist, Professor Owen, who, speaking of such cases, says ('On the Nature of Limbs,' pages 39, 40), 'I think it will be obvious that the principle of final adaptations fails to satisfy all the conditions of the problem.'"—"The Times," December 26th, 1859.) about Owen, though my wife recognized its significance first. Farewell, you best and worst of men!

That sentence about the bird and the fish dinners charmed us. Lyell wrote to me—style like yours.

That sentence about the bird and fish dinners captivated us. Lyell wrote to me—style like yours.

Have you seen the slashing article of December 26th in the "Daily News," against my stealing from my "master," the author of the "Vestiges?"

Have you seen the harsh article from December 26th in the "Daily News," criticizing me for stealing from my "master," the author of the "Vestiges?"

LETTER 90. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. {Undated}

How I should like to know whether Milne Edwards has read the copy which I sent him, and whether he thinks I have made a pretty good case on our side of the question. There is no naturalist in the world for whose opinion I have so profound a respect. Of course I am not so silly as to expect to change his opinion.

How I would love to know if Milne Edwards has read the copy I sent him and whether he thinks I’ve made a solid case for our side of the argument. There’s no naturalist in the world whose opinion I respect more. Of course, I'm not foolish enough to expect to change his mind.

LETTER 91. TO C. LYELL.

(91/1. The date of this letter is doubtful; but as it evidently refers to the 2nd edition of the "Origin," which appeared on January 7th, 1860, we believe that December 9th, 1859, is right. The letter of Sedgwick's is doubtless that given in the "Life and Letters," II., page 247; it is there dated December 24th, 1859, but from other evidence it was probably written on November 24th)

(91/1. The date of this letter is uncertain; however, since it clearly refers to the 2nd edition of the "Origin," which was released on January 7th, 1860, we believe December 9th, 1859, is accurate. Sedgwick's letter is certainly the one found in the "Life and Letters," II., page 247; it’s dated December 24th, 1859, but from other evidence, it was likely written on November 24th.)

{December?} 9th {1859}.

{December?} 9, {1859}.

I send Sedgwick's letter; it is terribly muddled, and really the first page seems almost childish.

I’m sending Sedgwick's letter; it’s really confusing, and honestly, the first page comes across as kind of childish.

I am sadly over-worked, so will not write to you. I have worked in a number of your invaluable corrections—indeed, all as far as time permits. I infer from a letter from Huxley that Ramsay (91/2. See a letter to Huxley, November 27th, 1859, "Life and Letters," II., page 282.) is a convert, and I am extremely glad to get pure geologists, as they will be very few. Many thanks for your very pleasant note. What pleasure you have given me. I believe I should have been miserable had it not been for you and a few others, for I hear threatening of attacks which I daresay will be severe enough. But I am sure that I can now bear them.

I'm unfortunately really busy, so I won't be able to write to you. I've included quite a few of your helpful corrections—in fact, all of them as much as time allows. From a letter I got from Huxley, I gather that Ramsay (91/2. See a letter to Huxley, November 27th, 1859, "Life and Letters," II., page 282.) has come around, and I'm really pleased to have pure geologists on board, as there won't be many of them. Thank you so much for your lovely note. You've brought me so much joy. I think I would have been pretty miserable without you and a few others, as I've heard hints of upcoming attacks that will probably be quite harsh. But I’m confident I can handle them now.

LETTER 92. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(92/1. The point here discussed is one to which Mr. Huxley attached great, in our opinion too great, importance.)

(92/1. The point being discussed here is one that Mr. Huxley attached significant, in our opinion excessive, importance to.)

Down, January 11th {1860?}.

Down, January 11, 1860.

I fully agree that the difficulty is great, and might be made much of by a mere advocate. Will you oblige me by reading again slowly from pages 267 to 272. (92/2. The reference is to the "Origin," Edition I.: the section on "The Fertility of Varieties when crossed, and of their Mongrel Offspring" occupies pages 267-72.) I may add to what is there said, that it seems to me quite hopeless to attempt to explain why varieties are not sterile, until we know the precise cause of sterility in species.

I completely agree that the challenge is significant and could be emphasized by just a supporter. Could you please read again slowly from pages 267 to 272? (92/2. The reference is to the "Origin," Edition I.: the section on "The Fertility of Varieties when crossed, and of their Mongrel Offspring" takes up pages 267-72.) I should add to what is mentioned there that I believe it's pretty hopeless to try to explain why varieties aren't sterile until we understand the exact cause of sterility in species.

Reflect for a moment on how small and on what very peculiar causes the unequal reciprocity of fertility in the same two species must depend. Reflect on the curious case of species more fertile with foreign pollen than their own. Reflect on many cases which could be given, and shall be given in my larger book (independently of hybridity) of very slight changes of conditions causing one species to be quite sterile and not affecting a closely allied species. How profoundly ignorant we are on the intimate relation between conditions of life and impaired fertility in pure species!

Take a moment to think about how small and specific the reasons are for the unequal fertility between the same two species. Consider the interesting situation where some species are more fertile with foreign pollen than with their own. Think about the many examples that could be provided and will be included in my larger book (aside from hybrid cases) where minor changes in conditions make one species completely sterile while having no effect on a closely related species. It’s astonishing how little we understand about the deep connection between living conditions and reduced fertility in pure species!

The only point which I might add to my short discussion on this subject, is that I think it probable that the want of adaptation to uniform conditions of life in our domestic varieties has played an important part in preventing their acquiring sterility when crossed. For the want of uniformity, and changes in the conditions of life, seem the only cause of the elimination of sterility (when crossed) under domestication. (92/3. The meaning which we attach to this obscure sentence is as follows: Species in a state of nature are closely adapted to definite conditions of life, so that the sexual constitution of species A is attuned, as it were, to a condition different from that to which B is attuned, and this leads to sterility. But domestic varieties are not strictly adapted by Natural Selection to definite conditions, and thus have less specialised sexual constitutions.) This elimination, though admitted by many authors, rests on very slight evidence, yet I think is very probably true, as may be inferred from the case of dogs. Under nature it seems improbable that the differences in the reproductive constitution, on which the sterility of any two species when crossed depends, can be acquired directly by Natural Selection; for it is of no advantage to the species. Such differences in reproductive constitution must stand in correlation with some other differences; but how impossible to conjecture what these are! Reflect on the case of the variations of Verbascum, which differ in no other respect whatever besides the fluctuating element of the colour of the flower, and yet it is impossible to resist Gartner's evidence, that this difference in the colour does affect the mutual fertility of the varieties.

The only point I’d like to add to my brief discussion on this topic is that I believe the lack of adaptation to uniform living conditions in our domestic varieties has played a key role in preventing them from becoming sterile when crossed. It seems that the absence of uniformity and changes in living conditions are the only reasons that sterility (when crossed) is eliminated under domestication. (92/3. The way we understand this complex sentence is as follows: Species in their natural state are closely adapted to specific living conditions, so the sexual structure of species A is suited to a different condition than that of species B, which leads to sterility. However, domestic varieties are not strictly adapted through Natural Selection to specific conditions, and therefore have less specialized sexual structures.) This elimination, although acknowledged by many authors, is supported by very little evidence, but I think it’s likely true, as suggested by the case of dogs. In nature, it seems unlikely that the differences in reproductive structures, which cause the sterility of two species when crossed, can be directly acquired through Natural Selection since it doesn’t benefit the species. Such differences in reproductive structure must be linked to some other differences; but it’s difficult to guess what these may be! Consider the case of Verbascum variations, which differ in no way apart from the fluctuating factor of flower color, and yet it's hard to deny Gartner's evidence that this color difference does impact the mutual fertility of the varieties.

The whole case seems to me far too mysterious to rest (92/4. The word "rest" seems to be used in place of "to serve as a foundation for.") a valid attack on the theory of modification of species, though, as you say, it offers excellent ground for a mere advocate.

The entire situation feels way too mysterious to support a valid challenge to the theory of evolution, even though, as you mentioned, it provides great material for someone who just wants to argue.

I am surprised, considering how ignorant we are on very many points, {that} more weak parts in my book have not as yet been pointed out to me. No doubt many will be. H.C. Watson founds his objection in MS. on there being no limit to infinite diversification of species: I have answered this, I think, satisfactorily, and have sent attack and answer to Lyell and Hooker. If this seems to you a good objection, I would send papers to you. Andrew Murray "disposes of" the whole theory by an ingenious difficulty from the distribution of blind cave insects (92/5. See "Life and Letters, Volume II., page 265. The reference here is to Murray's address before the Botanical Society, Edinburgh. Mr. Darwin seems to have read Murray's views only in a separate copy reprinted from the "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." There is some confusion about the date of the paper; the separate copy is dated January 16th, while in the volume of the "Proc. R. Soc." it is February 20th. In the "Life and Letters," II., page 261 it is erroneously stated that these are two different papers.); but it can, I think, be fairly answered.

I’m surprised that, given how much we don’t know about many things, more weaknesses in my book haven’t been pointed out to me yet. I’m sure many will come up. H.C. Watson bases his objection in the manuscript on the idea that there’s no limit to the infinite variety of species: I believe I’ve answered this satisfactorily and have sent both the critique and my response to Lyell and Hooker. If you think this is a valid objection, I’d be happy to send you the papers. Andrew Murray dismisses the entire theory with a clever issue regarding the distribution of blind cave insects (92/5. See "Life and Letters, Volume II., page 265. This reference is to Murray's talk at the Botanical Society in Edinburgh. Mr. Darwin seems to have read Murray's views only in a separate copy reprinted from the "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." There’s some confusion about the date of the paper; the separate copy is dated January 16th, while in the volume of the "Proc. R. Soc." it is February 20th. In "Life and Letters," II., page 261, it is incorrectly stated that these are two different papers.); but I think it can be answered reasonably well.

LETTER 93. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, {February} 2nd {1860}.

LETTER 93. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, February 2, 1860.

I have had this morning a letter from old Bronn (93/1. See "Life and Letters, II., page 277.) (who, to my astonishment, seems slightly staggered by Natural Selection), and he says a publisher in Stuttgart is willing to publish a translation, and that he, Bronn, will to a certain extent superintend. Have you written to Kolliker? if not, perhaps I had better close with this proposal—what do you think? If you have written, I must wait, and in this case will you kindly let me hear as soon as you hear from Kolliker?

I received a letter this morning from old Bronn (93/1. See "Life and Letters, II., page 277.) who, to my surprise, seems a bit taken aback by Natural Selection. He mentioned that a publisher in Stuttgart is interested in publishing a translation, and that he, Bronn, will oversee it to some extent. Have you reached out to Kolliker? If not, maybe I should go ahead with this proposal—what do you think? If you have already written to him, I'll need to wait, so please let me know as soon as you hear back from Kolliker.

My poor dear friend, you will curse the day when you took up the "general agency" line; but really after this I will not give you any more trouble.

My poor dear friend, you're going to regret the day you got into the "general agency" business; but honestly, after this, I won’t cause you any more trouble.

Do not forget the three tickets for us for your lecture, and the ticket for Baily, the poulterer.

Do not forget the three tickets for us for your lecture, and the ticket for Baily, the poultry seller.

Old Bronn has published in the "Year-book for Mineralogy" a notice of the "Origin" (93/2. "Neues Jahrb. fur Min." 1860, page 112.); and says he has himself published elsewhere a foreboding of the theory!

Old Bronn has published a notice in the "Yearbook for Mineralogy" about the "Origin" (93/2. "Neues Jahrb. für Min." 1860, page 112.); and he claims to have previously published a warning about the theory!

LETTER 94. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 14th {1860}.

I succeeded in persuading myself for twenty-four hours that Huxley's lecture was a success. (94/1. At the Royal Institution. See "Life and Letters," II., page 282.) Parts were eloquent and good, and all very bold; and I heard strangers say, "What a good lecture!" I told Huxley so; but I demurred much to the time wasted in introductory remarks, especially to his making it appear that sterility was a clear and manifest distinction of species, and to his not having even alluded to the more important parts of the subject. He said that he had much more written out, but time failed. After conversation with others and more reflection, I must confess that as an exposition of the doctrine the lecture seems to me an entire failure. I thank God I did not think so when I saw Huxley; for he spoke so kindly and magnificently of me, that I could hardly have endured to say what I now think. He gave no just idea of Natural Selection. I have always looked at the doctrine of Natural Selection as an hypothesis, which, if it explained several large classes of facts, would deserve to be ranked as a theory deserving acceptance; and this, of course, is my own opinion. But, as Huxley has never alluded to my explanation of classification, morphology, embryology, etc., I thought he was thoroughly dissatisfied with all this part of my book. But to my joy I find it is not so, and that he agrees with my manner of looking at the subject; only that he rates higher than I do the necessity of Natural Selection being shown to be a vera causa always in action. He tells me he is writing a long review in the "Westminster." It was really provoking how he wasted time over the idea of a species as exemplified in the horse, and over Sir J. Hall's old experiment on marble. Murchison was very civil to me over my book after the lecture, in which he was disappointed. I have quite made up my mind to a savage onslaught; but with Lyell, you, and Huxley, I feel confident we are right, and in the long run shall prevail. I do not think Asa Gray has quite done you justice in the beginning of the review of me. (94/2. "Review of Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection," by "A.G." ("Amer. Jour. Sci." Volume XXIX., page 153, 1860). In a letter to Asa Gray on February 18th, 1860, Darwin writes: "Your review seems to me admirable; by far the best which I have read." ("Life and Letters," II., 1887, page 286.) The review seemed to me very good, but I read it very hastily.

I managed to convince myself for twenty-four hours that Huxley's lecture was a success. (94/1. At the Royal Institution. See "Life and Letters," II., page 282.) Some parts were eloquent and strong, and it was all very bold; I even heard strangers say, "What a good lecture!" I told Huxley that, but I had significant objections regarding the time spent on introductory remarks, especially regarding his claim that sterility was a clear and obvious distinction of species, and the fact he didn't even mention the more critical aspects of the topic. He said he had a lot more written out, but time ran out. After talking to others and thinking it over, I have to admit that as a presentation of the doctrine, the lecture seems like a total failure to me. I'm grateful I didn't feel that way when I saw Huxley; he spoke so kindly and grandly about me that I could hardly have handled saying what I think now. He didn't give a true representation of Natural Selection. I've always viewed the doctrine of Natural Selection as a hypothesis that, if it explained several major categories of facts, would deserve to be considered an acceptable theory; and that's just my own view. However, since Huxley never referenced my explanation of classification, morphology, embryology, etc., I thought he was completely dissatisfied with that part of my book. But to my delight, it turns out he isn't, and he agrees with my perspective on the subject; he just values the necessity of Natural Selection being demonstrated as a true cause always at work more than I do. He told me he's writing a lengthy review for the "Westminster." It was truly frustrating how he wasted time discussing the idea of a species as illustrated by the horse and Sir J. Hall's old marble experiment. Murchison was very polite to me about my book after the lecture, even though he was disappointed. I've completely made up my mind to launch a fierce attack; but with Lyell, you, and Huxley by my side, I feel confident we're right and will ultimately prevail. I don't think Asa Gray has quite done you justice in the beginning of his review of me. (94/2. "Review of Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection," by "A.G." ("Amer. Jour. Sci." Volume XXIX., page 153, 1860). In a letter to Asa Gray on February 18th, 1860, Darwin writes: "Your review seems to me admirable; by far the best which I have read." ("Life and Letters," II., 1887, page 286.) The review seemed very good to me, but I read it quite quickly.

LETTER 95. TO C. LYELL. Down, {February} 18th {1860}.

I send by this post Asa Gray, which seems to me very good, with the stamp of originality on it. Also Bronn's "Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie." (95/1. See Letter 93.)

I’m sending you Asa Gray, which I think is really good and has a unique touch to it. Also, Bronn's "Jahrbuch für Mineralogie." (95/1. See Letter 93.)

The united intellect of my family has vainly tried to make it out. I never tried such confoundedly hard german; nor does it seem worth the labour. He sticks to Priestley's Green Matter, and seems to think that till it can be shown how life arises it is no good showing how the forms of life arise. This seems to me about as logical (comparing very great things with little) as to say it was no use in Newton showing the laws of attraction of gravity and the consequent movement of the planets, because he could not show what the attraction of gravity is.

The combined intelligence of my family has tried in vain to figure it out. I’ve never attempted such frustratingly complex German; it doesn’t seem worth the effort. He clings to Priestley's Green Matter and believes that unless we can explain how life begins, there's no point in showing how different forms of life develop. To me, that logic is about as reasonable (when comparing major concepts to minor ones) as saying there’s no point in Newton demonstrating the laws of gravitational attraction and the resulting movement of the planets, simply because he couldn’t explain what gravitational attraction actually is.

The expression "Wahl der Lebens-Weise" (95/2. "Die fruchtbarste und allgemeinste Ursache der Varietaten-Bildung ist jedoch die Wahl der Lebens-Weise" (loc. cit., page 112).) makes me doubt whether B. understands what I mean by Natural Selection, as I have told him. He says (if I understand him) that you ought to be on the same side with me.

The phrase "Wahl der Lebens-Weise" (95/2. "Die fruchtbarste und allgemeinste Ursache der Varietaten-Bildung ist jedoch die Wahl der Lebens-Weise" (loc. cit., page 112).) makes me question whether B. grasps what I mean by Natural Selection, as I have explained to him. He suggests (if I understand him correctly) that you should align with me.

P.S. Sunday afternoon.—I have kept back this to thank you for your letter, with much news, received this morning. My conscience is uneasy at the time you waste in amusing and interesting me. I was very curious to hear about Phillips. The review in the "Annals" is, as I was convinced, by Wollaston, for I have had a very cordial letter from him this morning. (95/3. A bibliographical Notice "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." ("Annals and Mag." Volume V., pages 132-43, 1860). The notice is not signed. Referring to the article, in a letter to Lyell, February 15th, 1860, Darwin writes: "I am perfectly convinced...that the review in the "Annals" is by Wollaston; no one else in the world would have used so many parentheses" ("Life and Letters," II., page 284).)

P.S. Sunday afternoon.—I held this back to thank you for your letter, which had a lot of news, received this morning. I feel guilty about the time you spend making me entertained and informed. I was really curious to hear about Phillips. The review in the "Annals" is, as I suspected, by Wollaston, since I received a very friendly letter from him this morning. (95/3. A bibliographical Notice "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." ("Annals and Mag." Volume V., pages 132-43, 1860). The notice is not signed. Referring to the article, in a letter to Lyell, February 15th, 1860, Darwin writes: "I am perfectly convinced...that the review in the "Annals" is by Wollaston; no one else in the world would have used so many parentheses" ("Life and Letters," II., page 284).)

I send by this post an attack in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" by Harvey (a first-rate botanist, as you probably know). (95/4. In the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of February 18th, 1860, W.H. Harvey described a case of monstrosity in Begonia frigida, which he argued was hostile to the theory of Natural Selection. The passage about Harvey's attack was published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 275.) It seems to me rather strange; he assumes the permanence of monsters, whereas monsters are generally sterile, and not often inheritable. But grant his case, it comes {to this}, that I have been too cautious in not admitting great and sudden variations. Here again comes in the mischief of my abstract. In fuller MS. I have discussed the parallel case of a normal fish like a monstrous gold-fish.

I'm sending this post an attack in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" by Harvey (a top-notch botanist, as you probably know). (95/4. In the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of February 18th, 1860, W.H. Harvey described a peculiar case involving Begonia frigida, which he argued was against the theory of Natural Selection. The part about Harvey's critique was published in "Life and Letters," II., page 275.) It seems a bit odd to me; he assumes the permanence of monsters, while monsters are usually sterile and not often passed down. But if we accept his point, it leads to the conclusion that I have been too careful in not acknowledging significant and sudden variations. Here again comes the problem with my summary. In a more detailed manuscript, I discussed the similar case of a normal fish compared to a monstrous goldfish.

I end my discussion by doubting, because all cases of monstrosities which resemble normal structures which I could find were not in allied groups. Trees like Aspicarpa (95/5. Aspicarpa, an American genus of Malpighiaceae, is quoted in the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 367) as an illustration of Linnaeus' aphorism that the characters do not give the genus, but the genus gives the characters. During several years' cultivation in France Aspicarpa produced only degraded flowers, which differed in many of the most important points of structure from the proper type of the order; but it was recognised by M. Richard that the genus should be retained among the Malpighiaceae. "This case," adds Darwin, "well illustrates the spirit of our classification."), with flowers of two kinds (in the "Origin"), led me also to speculate on the same subject; but I could find only one doubtfully analogous case of species having flowers like the degraded or monstrous flowers. Harvey does not see that if only a few (as he supposes) of the seedlings inherited being monstrosities, Natural Selection would be necessary to select and preserve them. You had better return the "Gardeners' Chronicle," etc., to my brother's. The case of Begonia (95/6. Harvey's criticism was answered by Sir J.D. Hooker in the following number of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" (February 25th, 1860, page 170).) in itself is very curious; I am tempted to answer the notice, but I will refrain, for there would be no end to answers.

I wrap up my discussion with some doubts, because all the cases of abnormalities that resemble normal structures I could find were not from related groups. Trees like Aspicarpa (95/5. Aspicarpa, an American genus of Malpighiaceae, is mentioned in the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 367) as an example of Linnaeus' saying that it's not the characteristics that define the genus, but the genus that defines the characteristics. After several years of cultivation in France, Aspicarpa only produced degraded flowers, which differed in many crucial structural aspects from the true type of the order; however, M. Richard recognized that the genus should still be classified among the Malpighiaceae. "This case," Darwin adds, "perfectly exemplifies the essence of our classification."), which has two types of flowers (in the "Origin"), made me think about the same topic; but I could only find one somewhat similar case of species that have flowers similar to the degraded or monstrous flowers. Harvey doesn't realize that if only a few (as he believes) of the seedlings were monstrosities, Natural Selection would be needed to identify and preserve them. It would be better to return the "Gardeners' Chronicle," etc., to my brother. The case of Begonia (95/6. Harvey's criticism was addressed by Sir J.D. Hooker in the next issue of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" (February 25th, 1860, page 170).) is very interesting on its own; I'm tempted to respond to the notice, but I'll hold back, as there would be no end to the replies.

With respect to your objection of a multitude of still living simple forms, I have not discussed it anywhere in the "Origin," though I have often thought it over. What you say about progress being only occasional and retrogression not uncommon, I agree to; only that in the animal kingdom I greatly doubt about retrogression being common. I have always put it to myself—What advantage can we see in an infusory animal, or an intestinal worm, or coral polypus, or earthworm being highly developed? If no advantage, they would not become highly developed: not but what all these animals have very complex structures (except infusoria), and they may well be higher than the animals which occupied similar places in the economy of nature before the Silurian epoch. There is a blind snake with the appearances and, in some respects, habits of earthworms; but this blind snake does not tend, as far as we can see, to replace and drive out worms. I think I must in a future edition discuss a few more such points, and will introduce this and H.C. Watson's objection about the infinite number of species and the general rise in organisation. But there is a directly opposite objection to yours which is very difficult to answer—viz. how at the first start of life, when there were only the simplest organisms, how did any complication of organisation profit them? I can only answer that we have not facts enough to guide any speculation on the subject.

Regarding your concern about the existence of many still-living simple forms, I haven’t addressed it anywhere in the "Origin," but I have often reflected on it. I agree with your point that progress is only occasional and that retrogression isn’t rare; however, I am skeptical about the idea that retrogression is common in the animal kingdom. I have always asked myself—What benefit do we see in an infusory animal, an intestinal worm, a coral polyp, or an earthworm being highly developed? If there’s no benefit, they wouldn’t become highly developed: not to mention that all of these animals (except for infusoria) have very complex structures, and they might actually be more advanced than the animals that filled similar roles in nature before the Silurian era. There is a blind snake that has the appearance and, in some ways, the habits of earthworms; but this blind snake doesn’t seem to replace or drive out worms. I believe I need to address a few more such points in a future edition and will include this along with H.C. Watson's objection regarding the infinite number of species and the overall rise in organization. However, there is a directly opposing objection to yours that is very challenging to answer—namely, how at the beginning of life, when only the simplest organisms existed, did any complexity in organization benefit them? Unfortunately, I can only say that we don’t have enough facts to inform any speculation on the subject.

With respect to Lepidosiren, Ganoid fishes, perhaps Ornithorhynchus, I suspect, as stated in the "Origin," (95/7. "Origin of Species" (Edition VI.), page 83.), that they have been preserved, from inhabiting fresh-water and isolated parts of the world, in which there has been less competition and less rapid progress in Natural Selection, owing to the fewness of individuals which can inhabit small areas; and where there are few individuals variation at most must be slower. There are several allusions to this notion in the "Origin," as under Amblyopsis, the blind cave-fish (95/8. "Origin," page 112.), and under Heer (95/9. "Origin," page 83.) about Madeira plants resembling the fossil and extinct plants of Europe.

Regarding Lepidosiren, Ganoid fishes, and possibly Ornithorhynchus, I suspect, as mentioned in the "Origin," (95/7. "Origin of Species" (Edition VI.), page 83.), that they have survived by living in freshwater and isolated regions of the world, where there has been less competition and slower progress in Natural Selection due to the limited number of individuals that can inhabit small areas; and where there are few individuals, variation must happen at a slower rate. There are several references to this idea in the "Origin," such as with Amblyopsis, the blind cave fish (95/8. "Origin," page 112.), and regarding Heer (95/9. "Origin," page 83.) about Madeira plants that resemble the fossil and extinct plants of Europe.

LETTER 96. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, March 5th {1860?}.

I am much obliged for your long and interesting letter. You have indeed good right to speak confidently about the habits of wild birds and animals; for I should think no one beside yourself has ever sported in Spitzbergen and Southern Africa. It is very curious and interesting that you should have arrived at the conclusion that so-called "Natural Selection" had been efficient in giving their peculiar colours to our grouse. I shall probably use your authority on the similar habits of our grouse and the Norwegian species.

I really appreciate your lengthy and engaging letter. You definitely have the right to speak confidently about the behavior of wild birds and animals; I doubt anyone besides you has actually hunted in Spitzbergen and Southern Africa. It's quite fascinating that you've concluded that what people call "Natural Selection" has contributed to the unique colors of our grouse. I’ll likely refer to your observations regarding the similar behaviors of our grouse and the species in Norway.

I am particularly obliged for your very curious fact of the effect produced by the introduction of the lowland grouse on the wildness of the grouse in your neighbourhood. It is a very striking instance of what crossing will do in affecting the character of a breed. Have you ever seen it stated in any sporting work that game has become wilder in this country? I wish I could get any sort of proof of the fact, for your explanation seems to me equally ingenious and probable. I have myself witnessed in South America a nearly parallel {case} with that which you mention in regard to the reindeer in Spitzbergen, with the Cervus campestris of La Plata. It feared neither man nor the sound of shot of a rifle, but was terrified at the sight of a man on horseback; every one in that country always riding. As you are so great a sportsman, perhaps you will kindly look to one very trifling point for me, as my neighbours here think it too absurd to notice—namely, whether the feet of birds are dirty, whether a few grains of dirt do not adhere occasionally to their feet. I especially want to know how this is in the case of birds like herons and waders, which stalk in the mud. You will guess that this relates to dispersal of seeds, which is one of my greatest difficulties. My health is very indifferent, and I am seldom able to attend the scientific meetings, but I sincerely hope that I may some time have the pleasure of meeting you.

I’m really grateful for your interesting observation about how introducing lowland grouse has affected the wildness of the grouse in your area. It’s a striking example of how crossbreeding can impact a breed's characteristics. Have you ever read in any sports-related books that game has become wilder in this country? I wish I could find some evidence to support that because your explanation seems both clever and likely. I’ve seen something quite similar in South America related to your point about the reindeer in Spitzbergen, with the Cervus campestris of La Plata. It wasn’t afraid of people or the sound of rifle shots but was scared of seeing a person on horseback, since everyone there rides. Since you’re such an experienced sportsman, could you kindly check on a minor detail for me that my neighbors think is too silly to consider—specifically, whether the feet of birds get dirty and if a few bits of dirt occasionally stick to their feet? I really want to know about this in relation to birds like herons and waders that wade through mud. You can probably guess this is about seed dispersal, which is one of my biggest challenges. My health isn’t great, and I rarely make it to scientific meetings, but I sincerely hope to have the pleasure of meeting you someday.

Pray accept my cordial thanks for your very kind letter.

Please accept my sincere thanks for your thoughtful letter.

LETTER 97. TO G.H.K. THWAITES. Down, March 21st {1860}.

I thank you very sincerely for your letter, and am much pleased that you go a little way with me. You will think it presumptuous, but I am well convinced from my own mental experience that if you keep the subject at all before your mind you will ultimately go further. The present volume is a mere abstract, and there are great omissions. One main one, which I have rectified in the foreign editions, is an explanation (which has satisfied Lyell, who made the same objection with you) why many forms do not progress or advance (and I quite agree about some retrograding). I have also a MS. discussion on beauty; but do you really suppose that for instance Diatomaceae were created beautiful that man, after millions of generations, should admire them through the microscope? (97/1. Thwaites (1811-82) published several papers on the Diatomaceae ("On Conjugation in the Diatomaceae," "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XX., 1847, pages 9-11, 343-4; "Further Observations on the Diatomaceae," loc. cit., 1848, page 161). See "Life and Letters" II., page 292.) I should attribute most of such structures to quite unknown laws of growth; and mere repetition of parts is to our eyes one main element of beauty. When any structure is of use (and I can show what curiously minute particulars are often of highest use), I can see with my prejudiced eyes no limit to the perfection of the coadaptations which could be effected by Natural Selection. I rather doubt whether you see how far, as it seems to me, the argument for homology and embryology may be carried. I do not look at this as mere analogy. I would as soon believe that fossil shells were mere mockeries of real shells as that the same bones in the foot of a dog and wing of a bat, or the similar embryo of mammal and bird, had not a direct signification, and that the signification can be unity of descent or nothing. But I venture to repeat how much pleased I am that you go some little way with me. I find a number of naturalists do the same, and as their halting-places are various, and I must think arbitrary, I believe they will all go further. As for changing at once one's opinion, I would not value the opinion of a man who could do so; it must be a slow process. (97/2. Darwin wrote to Woodward in regard to the "Origin": "It may be a vain and silly thing to say, but I believe my book must be read twice carefully to be fully understood. You will perhaps think it by no means worth the labour.") Thank you for telling me about the Lantana (97/3. An exotic species of Lantana (Verbenaceae) grows vigorously in Ceylon, and is described as frequently making its appearance after the firing of the low-country forests (see H.H.W. Pearson, "The Botany of the Ceylon Patanas," "Journal Linn. Soc." Volume XXXIV., page 317, 1899). No doubt Thwaites' letter to Darwin referred to the spreading of the introduced Lantana, comparable to that of the cardoon in La Plata and of other plants mentioned by Darwin in the "Origin of Species" (Edition VI., page 51).), and I should at any time be most grateful for any information which you think would be of use to me. I hope that you will publish a list of all naturalised plants in Ceylon, as far as known, carefully distinguishing those confined to cultivated soils alone. I feel sure that this most important subject has been greatly undervalued.

I really appreciate your letter and I’m glad to see that you somewhat agree with me. You might think this is bold, but I’m convinced from my own experiences that if you keep the subject in mind, you will eventually explore it further. This current volume is just a summary, and it has significant omissions. One major omission, which I’ve corrected in the foreign editions, is an explanation (which satisfied Lyell, who had the same concern as you) about why many forms don’t evolve or improve (and I completely agree that some regress). I also have a manuscript discussing beauty; but do you really think that, for example, Diatomaceae were created to be beautiful so that humans, after millions of generations, would admire them through a microscope? I would attribute most of these features to entirely unknown growth laws, and to our eyes, the repetition of parts is a key aspect of beauty. When any structure serves a purpose (and I can show how often surprisingly minute details are actually very useful), I don’t see, with my biased perspective, any limit to the perfection of coadaptations achievable through Natural Selection. I’m not sure you see how far, as it seems to me, the argument for homology and embryology can be taken. I don’t see this as just an analogy. I would be just as likely to believe that fossil shells are mere imitations of real shells as I would that the similar bones in a dog’s foot and a bat’s wing, or the similar embryos of mammals and birds, don’t have a direct meaning, and that meaning can only be unity of descent or nothing. But I want to reiterate how happy I am that you’re seeing some of this with me. I’ve found that several naturalists share similar views, and since their stopping points differ and seem arbitrary, I believe they will all continue further. As for someone changing their opinion all at once, I wouldn’t value the opinion of a person who could do that; it has to be a gradual process. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the Lantana, and I would always be very grateful for any information you think might be helpful to me. I hope you publish a list of all the naturalized plants in Ceylon, as far as known, carefully distinguishing those that are limited to cultivated soils. I’m sure this incredibly important topic has been highly undervalued.

LETTER 98. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(98/1. The reference here is to the review on the "Origin of Species" generally believed to be by the late Sir R. Owen, and published in the April number of the "Edinburgh Review," 1860. Owen's biographer is silent on the subject, and prints, without comment, the following passage in an undated letter from Sedgwick to Owen: "Do you know who was the author of the article in the "Edinburgh" on the subject of Darwin's theory? On the whole, I think it very good. I once suspected that you must have had a hand in it, and I then abandoned that thought. I have not read it with any care" (Owen's "Life," Volume II., page 96).

(98/1. The reference here is to the review of "Origin of Species," generally thought to be by the late Sir R. Owen, published in the April issue of the "Edinburgh Review," 1860. Owen's biographer doesn't mention this and includes, without comment, the following excerpt from an undated letter from Sedgwick to Owen: "Do you know who wrote the article in the 'Edinburgh' about Darwin's theory? Overall, I think it's really good. I once thought you might have been involved, but I gave up that idea. I haven't read it closely" (Owen's "Life," Volume II., page 96).

April 9th {1860}.

April 9, 1860.

I never saw such an amount of misrepresentation. At page 530 (98/2. "Lasting and fruitful conclusions have, indeed, hitherto been based only on the possession of knowledge; now we are called upon to accept an hypothesis on the plea of want of knowledge. The geological record, it is averred, is so imperfect!"—"Edinburgh Review," CXI., 1860, page 530.) he says we are called on to accept the hypothesis on the plea of ignorance, whereas I think I could not have made it clearer that I admit the imperfection of the Geological Record as a great difficulty.

I’ve never seen such a level of misrepresentation. On page 530 (98/2. "Lasting and fruitful conclusions have, in fact, only been based on the possession of knowledge; now we’re being asked to accept a hypothesis because of a lack of knowledge. The geological record is said to be so incomplete!"—"Edinburgh Review," CXI., 1860, page 530.) he claims we are being asked to accept the hypothesis due to ignorance, while I believe I couldn’t have made it clearer that I acknowledge the incompleteness of the Geological Record as a significant challenge.

The quotation (98/3. "We are appealed to, or at least 'the young and rising naturalists with plastic minds,* {On the Nature of the Limbs, page 482} are adjured." It will be seen that the inverted comma after "naturalists" is omitted; the asterisk referring, in a footnote (here placed in square brackets), to page 482 of the "Origin," seems to have been incorrectly assumed by Mr. Darwin to show the close of the quotation.—Ibid., page 512.) on page 512 of the "Review" about "young and rising naturalists with plastic minds," attributed to "nature of limbs," is a false quotation, as I do not use the words "plastic minds."

The quote (98/3. "We are appealed to, or at least 'the young and rising naturalists with plastic minds,* {On the Nature of the Limbs, page 482} are urged." You'll notice that the closing quotation mark after "naturalists" is missing; the asterisk referring, in a footnote (here placed in square brackets), to page 482 of the "Origin," seems to have been incorrectly interpreted by Mr. Darwin as indicating the end of the quote.—Ibid., page 512.) on page 512 of the "Review" about "young and rising naturalists with plastic minds," referenced as "nature of limbs," is a misquote, since I do not use the phrase "plastic minds."

At page 501 (98/4. The passage ("Origin," Edition I., page 483) begins, "But do they really believe...," and shows clearly that the author considers such a belief all but impossible.) the quotation is garbled, for I only ask whether naturalists believe about elemental atoms flashing, etc., and he changes it into that I state that they do believe.

At page 501 (98/4. The passage ("Origin," Edition I., page 483) begins, "But do they really believe...," and clearly shows that the author thinks such a belief is nearly impossible.) the quote is mixed up because I’m simply asking if naturalists think about elemental atoms flashing, etc., and he twists it into saying that I claim they believe in that.

At page 500 (98/5. "All who have brought the transmutation speculation to the test of observed facts and ascertained powers in organic life, and have published the results, usually adverse to such speculations, are set down by Mr. Darwin as 'curiously illustrating the blindness of preconceived opinion.'" The passage in the "Origin," page 482, begins by expressing surprise at the point of view of some naturalists: "They admit that a multitude of forms, which till lately they themselves thought were special creations,...have been produced by variation, but they refuse to extend the same view to other and very slightly different forms...They admit variation as a vera causa in one case, they arbitrarily reject it in another, without assigning any distinction in the two cases. The day will come when this will be given as a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion.") it is very false to say that I imply by "blindness of preconceived opinion" the simple belief of creation. And so on in other cases. But I beg pardon for troubling you. I am heartily sorry that in your unselfish endeavours to spread what you believe to be truth, you should have incurred so brutal an attack. (98/6. The "Edinburgh" Reviewer, referring to Huxley's Royal Institution Lecture given February 10th, 1860, "On Species and Races and their Origin," says (page 521), "We gazed with amazement at the audacity of the dispenser of the hour's intellectual amusement, who, availing himself of the technical ignorance of the majority of his auditors, sought to blind them as to the frail foundations of 'natural selection' by such illustrations as the subjoined": And then follows a critique of the lecturer's comparison of the supposed descent of the horse from the Palaeothere with that of various kinds of domestic pigeons from the Rock-pigeon.) And now I will not think any more of this false and malignant attack.

At page 500 (98/5. "Everyone who has tested the theories of transmutation against observed facts and established biological powers and has published their findings—usually contrary to these theories—are labeled by Mr. Darwin as 'curiously illustrating the blindness of preconceived opinion.'" The excerpt from the "Origin," page 482, starts by expressing surprise at the perspective of some naturalists: "They acknowledge that numerous forms, which until recently they considered special creations,...have resulted from variation, yet they refuse to apply the same reasoning to other slightly different forms...They accept variation as a valid cause in one instance, but arbitrarily dismiss it in another, without explaining any difference between the two cases. The time will come when this will be cited as a curious example of the blindness of preconceived opinion.") it is entirely incorrect to suggest that by "blindness of preconceived opinion" I mean the simple belief in creation. And similarly in other instances. But I apologize for troubling you. I genuinely regret that in your selfless efforts to share what you believe to be the truth, you have faced such a brutal attack. (98/6. The "Edinburgh" Reviewer, commenting on Huxley's Royal Institution Lecture given on February 10th, 1860, "On Species and Races and their Origin," states (page 521), "We were astonished at the boldness of the speaker who, taking advantage of the technical ignorance of most of his audience, attempted to obscure the shaky foundations of 'natural selection' with illustrations like the following": And then comes a critique of the lecturer's analogy between the supposed evolution of the horse from the Palaeothere and various types of domestic pigeons from the Rock-pigeon.) And now, I will not dwell any longer on this false and malignant attack.

LETTER 99. TO MAXWELL MASTERS. Down, April 13th {1860}.

I thank you very sincerely for your two kind notes. The next time you write to your father I beg you to give him from me my best thanks, but I am sorry that he should have had the trouble of writing when ill. I have been much interested by the facts given by him. If you think he would in the least care to hear the result of an artificial cross of two sweet peas, you can send the enclosed; if it will only trouble him, tear it up. There seems to be so much parallelism in the kind of variation from my experiment, which was certainly a cross, and what Mr. Masters has observed, that I cannot help suspecting that his peas were crossed by bees, which I have seen well dusted with the pollen of the sweet pea; but then I wish this, and how hard it is to prevent one's wish biassing one's judgment!

I sincerely thank you for your two thoughtful notes. Next time you write to your dad, please give him my best thanks, but I feel bad that he had to write while he was unwell. I've found the facts he shared really interesting. If you think he'd be at all interested in the outcome of an artificial cross of two sweet peas, you can send the enclosed; but if it will just be a bother, feel free to throw it away. There seems to be a lot of similarity between the variations in my experiment, which was definitely a cross, and what Mr. Masters has observed. I can't help but suspect that his peas were crossed by bees, which I've seen covered in sweet pea pollen. But then again, I wish this were the case, and it’s tough to stop my wish from influencing my judgment!

I was struck with your remark about the Compositae, etc. I do not see that it bears much against me, and whether it does or not is of course of not the slightest importance. Although I fully agree that no definition can be drawn between monstrosities and slight variations (such as my theory requires), yet I suspect there is some distinction. Some facts lead me to think that monstrosities supervene generally at an early age; and after attending to the subject I have great doubts whether species in a state of nature ever become modified by such sudden jumps as would result from the Natural Selection of monstrosities. You cannot do me a greater service than by pointing out errors. I sincerely hope that your work on monstrosities (99/1. "Vegetable Teratology," London, 1869 (Ray Soc.).) will soon appear, for I am sure it will be highly instructive.

I was taken aback by your comment about the Compositae and so on. I don’t think it really matters one way or the other, and whether it does or not is clearly of no importance. While I completely agree that you can’t really draw a clear line between monstrosities and minor variations (like my theory suggests), I suspect there’s some kind of distinction. Some evidence makes me believe that monstrosities typically occur early on; and after considering the subject, I have serious doubts about whether species in the wild ever change due to sudden shifts that would come from the Natural Selection of monstrosities. You’d be doing me a huge favor by pointing out any mistakes. I genuinely hope your work on monstrosities (99/1. "Vegetable Teratology," London, 1869 (Ray Soc.).) is published soon, as I’m sure it will be very informative.

Now for your notes, for which let me again thank you.

Now for your notes, which I want to thank you for again.

1. Your conclusion about parts developed (99/2. See "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 153, on the variability of parts "developed in an extraordinary manner in any one species, compared with the other species of the same genus." See "Life and Letters," II., pages 97, 98, also Letter 33.) not being extra variable agrees with Hooker's. You will see that I have stated that the rule apparently does not hold with plants, though it ought, if true, to hold good with them.

1. Your conclusion about the parts that have developed (99/2. See "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 153, regarding the variability of parts "developed in an extraordinary manner in any one species, compared to the other species in the same genus." See "Life and Letters," II., pages 97, 98, also Letter 33.) not being more variable aligns with Hooker's views. You'll notice that I've pointed out that this rule doesn't seem to apply to plants, even though it should, if it's true.

2. I cannot now remember in what work I saw the statement about Peloria affecting the axis, but I know it was one which I thought might be trusted. I consulted also Dr. Falconer, and I think that he agreed to the truth of it; but I cannot now tell where to look for my notes. I had been much struck with finding a Laburnum tree with the terminal flowers alone in each raceme peloric, though not perfectly regular. The Pelargonium case in the "Origin" seems to point in the same direction. (99/3. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 145.)

2. I can't remember which work mentioned Peloria affecting the axis, but I know it was one I considered reliable. I also talked to Dr. Falconer, and I think he agreed with it, but I can't recall where my notes are. I was really surprised to find a Laburnum tree with only the terminal flowers in each raceme being peloric, though not perfectly regular. The Pelargonium example in the "Origin" seems to support this idea. (99/3. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 145.)

3. Thanks for the correction about furze: I found the seedlings just sprouting, and was so much surprised and their appearance that I sent them to Hooker; but I never plainly asked myself whether they were cotyledons or first leaves. (99/4. The trifoliate leaves of furze seedlings are not cotyledons, but early leaves: see Lubbock's "Seedlings," I., page 410.)

3. Thanks for correcting me about furze: I found the seedlings just starting to sprout, and I was so surprised by their appearance that I sent them to Hooker; but I never really asked myself whether they were cotyledons or first leaves. (99/4. The trifoliate leaves of furze seedlings are not cotyledons, but early leaves: see Lubbock's "Seedlings," I., page 410.)

4. That is a curious fact about the seeds of the furze, the more curious as I found with Leguminosae that immersion in plain cold water for a very few days killed some kinds.

4. That's an interesting fact about furze seeds, especially since I discovered with Leguminosae that soaking them in plain cold water for just a few days killed some types.

If at any time anything should occur to you illustrating or opposing my notions, and you have leisure to inform me, I should be truly grateful, for I can plainly see that you have wealth of knowledge.

If at any time you come up with something that illustrates or challenges my ideas, and you have the time to share it with me, I would really appreciate it, because I can clearly see that you have a lot of knowledge.

With respect to advancement or retrogression in organisation in monstrosities of the Compositae, etc., do you not find it very difficult to define which is which?

Regarding progress or decline in the structure of the Compositae and similar groups, don't you think it's quite challenging to clearly determine which is which?

Anyhow, most botanists seem to differ as widely as possible on this head.

Anyways, most botanists appear to disagree as much as they can on this topic.

LETTER 100. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 8th {1860}.

Very many thanks about the Elodea, which case interests me much. I wrote to Mr. Marshall (100/1. W. Marshall was the author of "Anacharis alsinastrum, a new water-weed": four letters to the "Cambridge Independent Press," reprinted as a pamphlet, 1852.) at Ely, and in due time he says he will send me whatever information he can procure.

Thanks a lot for the Elodea, which I'm very interested in. I wrote to Mr. Marshall at Ely, and he said he would send me whatever information he can gather when he gets the chance.

Owen is indeed very spiteful. (100/2. Owen was believed to be the author of the article in the "Edinburgh Review," April, 1860. See Letter 98.) He misrepresents and alters what I say very unfairly. But I think his conduct towards Hooker most ungenerous: viz., to allude to his essay (Australian Flora), and not to notice the magnificent results on geographical distribution. The Londoners say he is mad with envy because my book has been talked about; what a strange man to be envious of a naturalist like myself, immeasurably his inferior! From one conversation with him I really suspect he goes at the bottom of his hidden soul as far as I do.

Owen is definitely very spiteful. (100/2. Owen was believed to be the author of the article in the "Edinburgh Review," April, 1860. See Letter 98.) He misrepresents and twists what I say in a very unfair way. But I think his behavior towards Hooker is really unkind: specifically, to mention his essay (Australian Flora) while ignoring the amazing results on geographical distribution. People in London say he’s jealous because my book has been getting attention; what a strange man to be envious of a naturalist like me, who is so far beneath him! From one conversation with him, I honestly suspect he digs into the depths of his hidden soul as much as I do.

I wonder whether Sedgwick noticed in the "Edinburgh Review" about the "Sacerdotal revilers,"—so the revilers are tearing each other to pieces. I suppose Sedgwick will be very fierce against me at the Philosophical Society. (100/3. The meeting of the "Cambridge Phil. Soc." was held on May 7th, 1860, and fully reported in the "Cambridge Chronicle," May 19th. Sedgwick is reported to have said that "Darwin's theory is not inductive—is not based on a series of acknowledged facts, leading to a general conclusion evolved, logically out of the facts...The only facts he pretends to adduce, as true elements of proof, are the varieties produced by domestication and the artifices of crossbreeding." Sedgwick went on to speak of the vexatious multiplication of supposed species, and adds, "In this respect Darwin's theory may help to simplify our classifications, and thereby do good service to modern science. But he has not undermined any grand truth in the constancy of natural laws, and the continuity of true species.") Judging from his notice in the "Spectator," (100/4. March 24th, 1860; see "Life and Letters," II., page 297.) he will misrepresent me, but it will certainly be unintentionally done. In a letter to me, and in the above notice, he talks much about my departing from the spirit of inductive philosophy. I wish, if you ever talk on the subject to him, you would ask him whether it was not allowable (and a great step) to invent the undulatory theory of light, i.e. hypothetical undulations, in a hypothetical substance, the ether. And if this be so, why may I not invent the hypothesis of Natural Selection (which from the analogy of domestic productions, and from what we know of the struggle for existence and of the variability of organic beings, is, in some very slight degree, in itself probable) and try whether this hypothesis of Natural Selection does not explain (as I think it does) a large number of facts in geographical distribution—geological succession, classification, morphology, embryology, etc. I should really much like to know why such an hypothesis as the undulation of the ether may be invented, and why I may not invent (not that I did invent it, for I was led to it by studying domestic varieties) any hypothesis, such as Natural Selection.

I wonder if Sedgwick noticed the "Edinburgh Review" about the "Sacerdotal revilers"—it seems like the critics are tearing each other apart. I guess Sedgwick will be pretty harsh against me at the Philosophical Society. (100/3. The meeting of the "Cambridge Phil. Soc." was held on May 7th, 1860, and fully reported in the "Cambridge Chronicle," May 19th. Sedgwick is reported to have said that "Darwin's theory is not inductive—is not based on a series of acknowledged facts, leading to a general conclusion logically derived from the facts...The only facts he claims as valid proof are the varieties produced by domestication and the techniques of crossbreeding." Sedgwick went on to mention the annoying multiplication of supposed species and added, "In this respect, Darwin's theory might help simplify our classifications, thus benefiting modern science. But he hasn't undermined any major truth about the constancy of natural laws and the continuity of true species.") Based on his comments in the "Spectator," (100/4. March 24th, 1860; see "Life and Letters," II., page 297.) he will probably misrepresent me, though it will definitely be unintentional. In a letter to me and in that notice, he talks a lot about my deviating from inductive philosophy. I wish, if you ever discuss this with him, you would ask him if it wasn't acceptable (and a significant advancement) to come up with the undulatory theory of light, meaning hypothetical undulations in a hypothetical medium, the ether. If that's the case, then why can’t I propose the hypothesis of Natural Selection (which, drawing on the analogy of domestic varieties and what we understand about the struggle for existence and the variability of living beings, is somewhat plausible) and see if this hypothesis of Natural Selection explains (as I believe it does) a significant number of facts regarding geographical distribution—geological succession, classification, morphology, embryology, etc.? I would really like to know why a hypothesis like the undulation of the ether can be created, but I cannot propose (not that I created it, as I was led to it by studying domestic varieties) any hypothesis, like Natural Selection.

Pray forgive me and my pen for running away with me, and scribbling on at such length.

Please forgive me and my pen for getting carried away and writing on for so long.

I can perfectly understand Sedgwick (100/5. See "Life and Letters," II., page 247; the letter is there dated December 24th, but must, we think, have been written in November at latest.) or any one saying that Natural Selection does not explain large classes of facts; but that is very different from saying that I depart from right principles of scientific investigation.

I completely understand Sedgwick (100/5. See "Life and Letters," II., page 247; the letter is dated December 24th there, but we believe it must have been written in November at the latest.) or anyone who claims that Natural Selection doesn’t explain many facts; however, that’s very different from saying that I stray from the proper principles of scientific investigation.

LETTER 101. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 14th {1860}.

I have been greatly interested by your letter to Hooker, and I must thank you from my heart for so generously defending me, as far as you could, against my powerful attackers. Nothing which persons say hurts me for long, for I have an entire conviction that I have not been influenced by bad feelings in the conclusions at which I have arrived. Nor have I published my conclusions without long deliberation, and they were arrived at after far more study than the public will ever know of, or believe in. I am certain to have erred in many points, but I do not believe so much as Sedgwick and Co. think.

I was very interested in your letter to Hooker, and I want to sincerely thank you for so generously defending me, as much as you could, against my strong critics. Nothing anyone says gets to me for long because I firmly believe that I haven’t been swayed by negative emotions in the conclusions I’ve reached. I also haven't shared my conclusions without careful thought, and they were developed after much more study than the public will ever realize or accept. I'm sure I've made mistakes in many areas, but I don't think I've gone wrong as much as Sedgwick and others believe.

Is there any Abstract or Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society published? (101/1. Henslow's remarks are not given in the above-mentioned report in the "Cambridge Chronicle.") If so, and you could get me a copy, I should like to have one.

Is there an Abstract or Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society published? (101/1. Henslow's comments are not included in the report mentioned above in the "Cambridge Chronicle.") If there is, and you can get me a copy, I would like to have one.

Believe me, my dear Henslow, I feel grateful to you on this occasion, and for the multitude of kindnesses you have done me from my earliest days at Cambridge.

Believe me, my dear Henslow, I truly appreciate you for this, as well as for all the kindnesses you've shown me since my early days at Cambridge.

LETTER 102. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 22nd {1860}.

LETTER 102. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 22, 1860.

Hooker has sent me a letter of Thwaites (102/1. See Letter 97.), of Ceylon, who makes exactly the same objections which you did at first about the necessity of all forms advancing, and therefore the difficulty of simple forms still existing. There was no worse omission than this in my book, and I had the discussion all ready.

Hooker sent me a letter from Thwaites (102/1. See Letter 97.) from Ceylon, who raises the same concerns you initially had about the need for all forms to evolve, making it hard for simple forms to still exist. This was a major oversight in my book, and I had the discussion prepared.

I am extremely glad to hear that you intend adding new arguments about the imperfection of the Geological Record. I always feel this acutely, and am surprised that such men as Ramsay and Jukes do not feel it more.

I’m really happy to hear that you plan to include new points about the flaws in the Geological Record. I always feel this deeply and am surprised that people like Ramsay and Jukes don’t seem to notice it as much.

I quite agree on insufficient evidence about mummy wheat. (102/2. See notes appended to a letter to Lyell, September 1843 (Botany).

I totally agree that there isn't enough evidence about mummy wheat. (102/2. See notes appended to a letter to Lyell, September 1843 (Botany).

When you can spare it, I should like (but out of mere curiosity) to see Binney on Coal marine marshes.

When you have some time, I'd really like to see Binney's work on coal marine marshes, just out of curiosity.

I once made Hooker very savage by saying that I believed the Coal plants grew in the sea, like mangroves. (102/3. See "Life and Letters," I., page 356.)

I once made Hooker really angry by saying that I thought coal plants grew in the sea, like mangroves. (102/3. See "Life and Letters," I., page 356.)

LETTER 103. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(103/1. This letter is of interest as containing a strong expression upon the overwhelming importance of selection.)

(103/1. This letter is noteworthy because it strongly emphasizes the crucial importance of selection.)

Down {1860}.

Many thanks for Harvey's letter (103/2. W.H. Harvey had been corresponding with Sir J.D. Hooker on the "Origin of Species."), which I will keep a little longer and then return. I will write to him and try to make clear from analogy of domestic productions the part which I believe selection has played. I have been reworking my pigeons and other domestic animals, and I am sure that any one is right in saying that selection is the efficient cause, though, as you truly say, variation is the base of all. Why I do not believe so much as you do in physical agencies is that I see in almost every organism (though far more clearly in animals than in plants) adaptation, and this except in rare instances, must, I should think, be due to selection.

Thanks a lot for Harvey's letter (103/2. W.H. Harvey had been corresponding with Sir J.D. Hooker about the "Origin of Species."), which I'll hold onto a bit longer before sending it back. I'll write to him and try to clarify, using examples from domesticated animals, the role I think selection plays. I've been working with my pigeons and other domestic animals, and I’m confident that anyone is right to say that selection is the driving force, even though, as you rightly point out, variation is the foundation of everything. The reason I don’t believe as strongly as you do in physical factors is that I notice, in almost every organism (though it's much clearer in animals than in plants), a level of adaptation that, except in rare cases, I think must be attributed to selection.

Do not forget the Pyrola when in flower. (103/3. In a letter to Hooker, May 22nd, 1860, Darwin wrote: "Have you Pyrola at Kew? if so, for heaven's sake observe the curvature of the pistil towards the gangway to the nectary." The fact of the stigma in insect-visited flowers being so placed that the visitor must touch it on its way to the nectar, was a point which early attracted Darwin's attention and strongly impressed him.) My blessed little Scaevola has come into flower, and I will try artificial fertilisation on it.

Do not forget the Pyrola when it's in bloom. (103/3. In a letter to Hooker, May 22nd, 1860, Darwin wrote: "Do you have Pyrola at Kew? If so, please observe how the pistil curves toward the entrance of the nectar." The fact that the stigma in flowers visited by insects is positioned so that the visitor must touch it on the way to the nectar was something that caught Darwin's attention early on and left a strong impression on him.) My dear little Scaevola has flowered, and I will try artificial fertilization on it.

I have looked over Harvey's letter, and have assumed (I hope rightly) that he could not object to knowing that you had forwarded it to me.

I’ve read Harvey’s letter and I’m assuming (hopefully correctly) that he wouldn’t mind knowing you sent it to me.

LETTER 104. TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 8th {1860}.

I have to thank you for two notes, one through Hooker, and one with some letters to be posted, which was done. I anticipated your request by making a few remarks on Owen's review. (104/1. "The Edinburgh Review," April, 1860.) Hooker is so weary of reviews that I do not think you will get any hints from him. I have lately had many more "kicks than halfpence." A review in the last Dublin "Nat. Hist. Review" is the most unfair thing which has appeared,—one mass of misrepresentation. It is evidently by Haughton, the geologist, chemist and mathematician. It shows immeasurable conceit and contempt of all who are not mathematicians. He discusses bees' cells, and puts a series which I have never alluded to, and wholly ignores the intermediate comb of Melipona, which alone led me to my notions. The article is a curiosity of unfairness and arrogance; but, as he sneers at Malthus, I am content, for it is clear he cannot reason. He is a friend of Harvey, with whom I have had some correspondence. Your article has clearly, as he admits, influenced him. He admits to a certain extent Natural Selection, yet I am sure does not understand me. It is strange that very few do, and I am become quite convinced that I must be an extremely bad explainer. To recur for a moment to Owen: he grossly misrepresents and is very unfair to Huxley. You say that you think the article must be by a pupil of Owen; but no one fact tells so strongly against Owen, considering his former position at the College of Surgeons, as that he has never reared one pupil or follower. In the number just out of "Fraser's Magazine" (104/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 314.) there is an article or review on Lamarck and me by W. Hopkins, the mathematician, who, like Haughton, despises the reasoning power of all naturalists. Personally he is extremely kind towards me; but he evidently in the following number means to blow me into atoms. He does not in the least appreciate the difference in my views and Lamarck's, as explaining adaptation, the principle of divergence, the increase of dominant groups, and the almost necessary extinction of the less dominant and smaller groups, etc.

I want to thank you for two notes, one through Hooker and one with some letters to be mailed, which has been taken care of. I anticipated your request by making a few comments on Owen's review. (104/1. "The Edinburgh Review," April, 1860.) Hooker is so tired of reviews that I doubt you'll get any suggestions from him. Recently, I've received way more "kicks than halfpence." A review in the latest Dublin "Nat. Hist. Review" is the most unfair thing I've seen—it’s full of misrepresentation. It’s clearly written by Haughton, the geologist, chemist, and mathematician. It shows an immense amount of arrogance and disdain for anyone who isn’t a mathematician. He talks about bees' cells and includes a series I’ve never mentioned while completely ignoring the intermediate comb of Melipona, which is what led me to my ideas. The article is a curious mix of unfairness and arrogance; however, since he mocks Malthus, I’m satisfied because it’s clear he can’t reason. He is friends with Harvey, with whom I’ve exchanged some letters. Your article has obviously influenced him, as he admits. He acknowledges Natural Selection to some extent but I’m sure he doesn’t really get what I mean. It’s strange that very few people do, and I’ve come to believe I must be an extremely poor explainer. To briefly return to Owen: he misrepresents and is very unfair to Huxley. You suggest that you think the article must be by one of Owen's students; however, there is no evidence against Owen more telling than the fact that he has never produced a single student or follower, especially considering his previous position at the College of Surgeons. In the latest issue of "Fraser's Magazine" (104/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 314.) there’s an article or review on Lamarck and me by W. Hopkins, the mathematician, who, like Haughton, looks down on the reasoning abilities of all naturalists. Personally, he is very kind toward me, but it seems he plans to tear me apart in the next issue. He doesn’t at all understand the difference between my views and Lamarck’s regarding adaptation, the principle of divergence, the rise of dominant groups, and the inevitable extinction of the less dominant and smaller groups, etc.

LETTER 105. TO C. LYELL. Down, June 17th {1860}.

One word more upon the Deification (105/1. "If we confound 'Variation' or 'Natural Selection' with such creational laws, we deify secondary causes or immeasurably exaggerate their influence" (Lyell, "The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks on Theories on the Origin of Species by Variation," page 469, London, 1863). See Letter 131.) of Natural Selection: attributing so much weight to it does not exclude still more general laws, i.e. the ordering of the whole universe. I have said that Natural Selection is to the structure of organised beings what the human architect is to a building. The very existence of the human architect shows the existence of more general laws; but no one, in giving credit for a building to the human architect, thinks it necessary to refer to the laws by which man has appeared.

One more thing about the idea of Deification (105/1. "If we confuse 'Variation' or 'Natural Selection' with these creation laws, we end up glorifying secondary causes or greatly overstating their impact" (Lyell, "The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks on Theories on the Origin of Species by Variation," page 469, London, 1863). See Letter 131.) regarding Natural Selection: giving it so much importance doesn’t rule out even broader laws, like the overall order of the universe. I've stated that Natural Selection is to the structure of living beings what a human architect is to a building. The very existence of a human architect indicates the presence of more general laws; however, when crediting a building to the human architect, no one feels the need to reference the laws that explain how humans came to be.

No astronomer, in showing how the movements of planets are due to gravity, thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed that the planets should pursue the courses which they pursue. I cannot believe that there is a bit more interference by the Creator in the construction of each species than in the course of the planets. It is only owing to Paley and Co., I believe, that this more special interference is thought necessary with living bodies. But we shall never agree, so do not trouble yourself to answer.

No astronomer, when explaining how the movements of planets are caused by gravity, feels the need to point out that the law of gravity was made so that the planets would follow the paths they do. I can't believe that there's any more intervention by the Creator in the creation of each species than there is in the movement of the planets. I think it’s only because of Paley and others that people believe this type of direct intervention is necessary with living beings. But we’ll never see eye to eye, so don’t worry about responding.

I should think your remarks were very just about mathematicians not being better enabled to judge of probabilities than other men of common-sense.

I believe your comments about mathematicians not being any better at judging probabilities than everyday people with common sense are quite accurate.

I have just got more returns about the gestation of hounds. The period differs at least from sixty-one to seventy-four days, just as I expected.

I just got more feedback about the gestation of hounds. The period varies from sixty-one to seventy-four days, just like I expected.

I was thinking of sending the "Gardeners' Chronicle" to you, on account of a paper by me on the fertilisation of orchids by insects (105/2. "Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency." This article in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of June 9th, 1860, page 528, begins with a request that observations should be made on the manner of fertilisation in the bee-and in the fly-orchis.), as it involves a curious point, and as you cared about my paper on kidney beans; but as you are so busy, I will not.

I was considering sending you the "Gardeners' Chronicle" because of my article on how insects fertilize orchids (105/2. "Fertilization of British Orchids by Insect Agency." This article in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" from June 9th, 1860, page 528, starts with a request for observations on the fertilization methods of the bee and fly orchids.), since it raises an interesting point, and you showed interest in my paper on kidney beans; but since you’re so busy, I won’t.

LETTER 106. TO C. LYELL. Down {June?} 20th {1860}.

I send Blyth (106/1. See Letter 27.); it is a dreadful handwriting; the passage is on page 4. In a former note he told me he feared there was hardly a chance of getting money for the Chinese expedition, and spoke of your kindness.

I’m sending Blyth (106/1. See Letter 27.); his handwriting is terrible; the passage is on page 4. In a previous note, he mentioned he was worried there was almost no chance of securing funding for the Chinese expedition and mentioned your generosity.

Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I wonder at, admire, and thank you for your patience in writing so much. I rather demur to Deinosaurus not having "free will," as surely we have. I demur also to your putting Huxley's "force and matter" in the same category with Natural Selection. The latter may, of course, be quite a false view; but surely it is not getting beyond our depth to first causes.

Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I marvel at, admire, and appreciate your patience in writing so much. I somewhat disagree with your idea that Deinosaurus doesn't have "free will," as we surely do. I also disagree with you putting Huxley's "force and matter" in the same category as Natural Selection. The latter may, of course, be a completely false view; but surely it isn't going beyond our understanding of first causes.

It is truly very remarkable that the gestation of hounds (106/2. In a letter written to Lyell on June 25th, 1860, the following paragraph occurs: "You need not believe one word of what I said about gestation of dogs. Since writing to you I have had more correspondence with the master of hounds, and I see his {record?} is worth nothing. It may, of course, be correct, but cannot be trusted. I find also different statements about the wolf: in fact, I am all abroad.") should vary so much, while that of man does not. It may be from multiple origin. The eggs from the Musk and the common duck take an intermediate period in hatching; but I should rather look at it as one of the ten thousand cases which we cannot explain—namely, when one part or function varies in one species and not in another.

It’s truly remarkable that the gestation period of hounds (106/2. In a letter written to Lyell on June 25th, 1860, the following paragraph occurs: "You need not believe one word of what I said about the gestation of dogs. Since writing to you I have had more correspondence with the master of hounds, and I see his {record?} is worth nothing. It may, of course, be correct, but cannot be trusted. I find also different statements about the wolf: in fact, I am all abroad.") can vary so much, while that of humans does not. It may come from multiple origins. The eggs from the Musk and common duck take an intermediate period to hatch; but I would rather see it as one of the thousands of cases we can’t explain—specifically, when one part or function varies in one species and not in another.

Hooker has told me nothing about his explanation of few Arctic forms; I knew the fact before. I had speculated on what I presume, from what you say, is his explanation (106/3. "Outlines of the Distribution of Arctic Plants," J.D. Hooker, "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIII., page 251, 1862. {read June 21st, 1860.} In this paper Hooker draws attention to the exceptional character of the Greenland flora; but as regards the paucity of its species and in its much greater resemblance to the floras of Arctic Europe than to those of Arctic America, he considers it difficult to account for these facts, "unless we admit Mr. Darwin's hypotheses" (see "Origin," Edition VI., 1872, Chapter XII., page 330) of a southern migration due to the cold of the glacial period and the subsequent return of the northern types during the succeeding warmer period. Many of the Greenland species, being confined to the peninsula, "would, as it were, be driven into the sea—that is exterminated" (Hooker, op. cit., pages 253-4).); but there must have been at all times an Arctic region. I found the speculation got too complex, as it seemed to me, to be worth following out.

Hooker hasn’t shared his thoughts on the few Arctic species; I already knew that. I considered what I think is his explanation based on what you mentioned. In his paper, Hooker highlights the unique nature of Greenland's plants, but he finds it challenging to explain the limited number of species and how closely they resemble the flora of Arctic Europe rather than that of Arctic America. He suggests this is hard to explain "unless we accept Mr. Darwin's hypotheses" about a southern migration caused by the cold during the glacial period and the later return of northern species in warmer times. Many of the species in Greenland are limited to the peninsula, which might mean they were effectively pushed into the sea—exterminated. However, there must always have been some Arctic region. I found the speculation too complicated to pursue further.

I have been doing some more interesting work with orchids. Talk of adaptation in woodpeckers (106/4. "Can a more striking instance of adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and seizing insects in the chinks of the bark?" (Origin of Species," Edition HAVE I., page 141).), some of the orchids beat it.

I’ve been doing some more interesting work with orchids. When it comes to adaptation in woodpeckers (106/4. "Can a more striking instance of adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and seizing insects in the chinks of the bark?" ("Origin of Species," Edition HAVE I., page 141).), some of the orchids outdo them.

I showed the case to Elizabeth Wedgwood, and her remark was, "Now you have upset your own book, for you won't persuade me that this could be effected by Natural Selection."

I showed the case to Elizabeth Wedgwood, and she said, "Now you've messed up your own book, because there's no way I'm going to believe this could happen through Natural Selection."

LETTER 107. TO T.H. HUXLEY. July 20th {1860}.

Many thanks for your pleasant letter. I agree to every word you say about "Fraser" and the "Quarterly." (107/1. Bishop Wilberforce's review of the "Origin" in the "Quarterly Review," July, 1860, was republished in his "Collected Essays," 1874. See "Life and Letters, II., page 182, and II., page 324, where some quotations from the review are given. For Hopkins' review in "Fraser's Magazine," June, 1860, see "Life and Letters," II., 314.) I have had some really admirable letters from Hopkins. I do not suppose he has ever troubled his head about geographical distribution, classification, morphologies, etc., and it is only those who have that will feel any relief in having some sort of rational explanation of such facts. Is it not grand the way in which the Bishop asserts that all such facts are explained by ideas in God's mind? The "Quarterly" is uncommonly clever; and I chuckled much at the way my grandfather and self are quizzed. I could here and there see Owen's hand. By the way, how comes it that you were not attacked? Does Owen begin to find it more prudent to leave you alone? I would give five shillings to know what tremendous blunder the Bishop made; for I see that a page has been cancelled and a new page gummed in.

Thank you so much for your nice letter. I agree with everything you said about "Fraser" and the "Quarterly." (107/1. Bishop Wilberforce's review of the "Origin" in the "Quarterly Review," July 1860, was republished in his "Collected Essays," 1874. See "Life and Letters, II., page 182, and II., page 324, where some quotes from the review are included. For Hopkins' review in "Fraser's Magazine," June 1860, see "Life and Letters," II., 314.) I've received some really great letters from Hopkins. I don't think he's ever really thought about geographical distribution, classification, morphologies, etc., and it's only those who have that will feel any relief in having some kind of rational explanation for such facts. Isn't it amazing how the Bishop claims that all these facts are explained by ideas in God's mind? The "Quarterly" is impressively clever; I got a good laugh at the way my grandfather and I were poked fun at. I could spot Owen's influence here and there. By the way, why weren't you attacked? Is Owen starting to think it’s smarter to leave you alone? I'd pay five shillings to know what huge mistake the Bishop made; I noticed that a page has been canceled and a new one has been pasted in.

I am indeed most thoroughly contented with the progress of opinion. From all that I hear from several quarters, it seems that Oxford did the subject great good. (107/2. An account of the meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860 is given in the "Life and Letters," II., page 320, and a fuller account in the one-volume "Life of Charles Darwin," 1892, page 236. See also the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page 179, and the amusing account of the meeting in Mr. Tuckwell's "Reminiscences of Oxford," London, 1900, page 50.) It is of enormous importance the showing the world that a few first-rate men are not afraid of expressing their opinion. I see daily more and more plainly that my unaided book would have done absolutely nothing. Asa Gray is fighting admirably in the United States. He is thorough master of the subject, which cannot be said by any means of such men as even Hopkins.

I am truly very satisfied with how opinions are changing. From what I hear from various sources, it seems that Oxford really benefited the subject. (107/2. An account of the meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860 is given in the "Life and Letters," II., page 320, and a more detailed account in the one-volume "Life of Charles Darwin," 1892, page 236. See also the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page 179, and the entertaining account of the meeting in Mr. Tuckwell's "Reminiscences of Oxford," London, 1900, page 50.) It’s incredibly important to show the world that a few top-notch individuals aren’t afraid to share their opinions. I see more clearly every day that my book alone would have achieved absolutely nothing. Asa Gray is doing an excellent job in the United States. He is a complete expert on the subject, which can't be said for many others, even someone like Hopkins.

I have been thinking over what you allude to about a natural history review. (107/3. In the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page 209, some account of the founding of the "Natural History Review" is given in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker of July 17th, 1860. On August 2nd Mr. Huxley added: "Darwin wrote me a very kind expostulation about it, telling me I ought not to waste myself on other than original work. In reply, however, I assured him that I MUST waste myself willy-nilly, and that the 'Review' was only a save-all.") I suppose you mean really a REVIEW and not journal for original communications in Natural History. Of the latter there is now superabundance. With respect to a good review, there can be no doubt of its value and utility; nevertheless, if not too late, I hope you will consider deliberately before you decide. Remember what a deal of work you have on your shoulders, and though you can do much, yet there is a limit to even the hardest worker's power of working. I should deeply regret to see you sacrificing much time which could be given to original research. I fear, to one who can review as well as you do, there would be the same temptation to waste time, as there notoriously is for those who can speak well.

I’ve been thinking about what you mentioned regarding a natural history review. (107/3. In the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page 209, there's a description of how the "Natural History Review" was founded in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker dated July 17th, 1860. On August 2nd, Mr. Huxley added: "Darwin wrote me a very kind note about it, saying I shouldn’t waste my efforts on anything other than original work. In response, I assured him that I must waste my time whether I like it or not, and that the 'Review' was just a way to manage that.") I assume you’re talking about a REVIEW and not a journal for original contributions in Natural History. There’s currently an overwhelming amount of the latter. Regarding a solid review, its value and usefulness are undeniable; however, if it’s not too late, I hope you’ll think carefully before you make your decision. Keep in mind how much work you already have on your plate, and while you can accomplish a lot, even the hardest workers have their limits. I would be really sorry to see you giving up valuable time that could be spent on original research. I worry that for someone as skilled at reviewing as you are, there might be the same temptation to waste time, just like there is for those who are good at speaking.

A review is only temporary; your work should be perennial. I know well that you may say that unless good men will review there will be no good reviews. And this is true. Would you not do more good by an occasional review in some well-established review, than by giving up much time to the editing, or largely aiding, if not editing, a review which from being confined to one subject would not have a very large circulation? But I must return to the chief idea which strikes me—viz., that it would lessen the amount of original and perennial work which you could do. Reflect how few men there are in England who can do original work in the several lines in which you are excellently fitted. Lyell, I remember, on analogous grounds many years ago resolved he would write no more reviews. I am an old slowcoach, and your scheme makes me tremble. God knows in one sense I am about the last man in England who ought to throw cold water on any review in which you would be concerned, as I have so immensely profited by your labours in this line.

A review is only temporary; your work should last forever. I get that you might argue that without good people reviewing, there won't be any good reviews. And that's true. But wouldn't you do more good by occasionally writing a review for a reputable publication than by spending a lot of time editing, or heavily contributing to, a review that's limited to one topic and wouldn't reach a big audience? Still, I have to get back to the main point that concerns me—it would reduce the amount of original and lasting work that you could accomplish. Think about how few people in England can create original work in the different areas where you excel. I remember Lyell deciding years ago that he wouldn't write any more reviews for similar reasons. I'm not as quick as I used to be, and your plan makes me anxious. Honestly, in one way, I'm probably one of the last people in England who should discourage any review that you would be involved in, since I’ve greatly benefited from your work in this area.

With respect to reviewing myself, I never tried: any work of that kind stops me doing anything else, as I cannot possibly work at odds and ends of time. I have, moreover, an insane hatred of stopping my regular current of work. I have now materials for a little paper or two, but I know I shall never work them up. So I will not promise to help; though not to help, if I could, would make me feel very ungrateful to you. You have no idea during how short a time daily I am able to work. If I had any regular duties, like you and Hooker, I should do absolutely nothing in science.

When it comes to reflecting on myself, I’ve never tried to do it. Any work like that just distracts me from everything else, since I can’t work in bits and pieces of time. Plus, I have an irrational dislike for interrupting my regular flow of work. I do have materials for a couple of short papers, but I know I’ll never get around to writing them. So, I can’t promise to help; however, not being able to help, if I had the chance, would make me feel really ungrateful to you. You have no idea how little time I actually have to work each day. If I had regular responsibilities like you and Hooker, I wouldn’t accomplish anything in science at all.

I am heartily glad to hear that you are better; but how such labour as volunteer-soldiering (all honour to you) does not kill you, I cannot understand.

I’m really glad to hear that you’re feeling better; but I can’t figure out how doing work like volunteer-soldiering (all respect to you) doesn’t wear you out.

For God's sake remember that your field of labour is original research in the highest and most difficult branches of Natural History. Not that I wish to underrate the importance of clever and solid reviews.

For goodness' sake, remember that your work is original research in the most advanced and challenging areas of Natural History. I'm not trying to downplay the value of insightful and thorough reviews.

LETTER 108. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Sudbrook Park, Richmond, Thursday {July, 1860}.

I must send you a line to say what a good fellow you are to send me so long an account of the Oxford doings. I have read it twice, and sent it to my wife, and when I get home shall read it again: it has so much interested me. But how durst you attack a live bishop in that fashion? I am quite ashamed of you! Have you no reverence for fine lawn sleeves? By Jove, you seem to have done it well. If any one were to ridicule any belief of the bishop's, would he not blandly shrug his shoulders and be inexpressibly shocked? I am very, very sorry to hear that you are not well; but am not surprised after all your self-imposed labour. I hope you will soon have an outing, and that will do you real good.

I need to drop you a note to say how great you are for sending me such a detailed account of what’s happening at Oxford. I’ve read it twice and shared it with my wife, and I plan to read it again when I get home because it really caught my interest. But how could you go after a live bishop like that? I’m quite embarrassed for you! Don’t you have any respect for those fancy lawn sleeves? Honestly, it looks like you pulled it off well. If someone were to poke fun at any of the bishop's beliefs, wouldn’t he just shrug it off and be incredibly shocked? I'm really sorry to hear that you're not feeling well, but I'm not surprised given all the hard work you've taken on. I hope you get a chance to take a break soon, and that it does you a lot of good.

I am glad to hear about J. Lubbock, whom I hope to see soon, and shall tell him what you have said. Have you read Hopkins in the last "Fraser?"—well put, in good spirit, except soul discussion bad, as I have told him; nothing actually new, takes the weak points alone, and leaves out all other considerations.

I’m happy to hear about J. Lubbock, whom I hope to see soon, and I’ll tell him what you said. Have you read Hopkins in the latest "Fraser?"—it’s well-written and has a good tone, except that the discussion about the soul is off, as I’ve told him; nothing really new, just focuses on the weak points and ignores all other factors.

I heard from Asa Gray yesterday; he goes on fighting like a Trojan.

I heard from Asa Gray yesterday; he keeps fighting like a champ.

God bless you!—get well, be idle, and always reverence a bishop.

God bless you! — get well, take it easy, and always show respect to a bishop.

LETTER 109. TO J.D. DANA. Down, July 30th {1860}.

I received several weeks ago your note telling me that you could not visit England, which I sincerely regretted, as I should most heartily have liked to have made your personal acquaintance. You gave me an improved, but not very good, account of your health. I should at some time be grateful for a line to tell me how you are. We have had a miserable summer, owing to a terribly long and severe illness of my eldest girl, who improves slightly but is still in a precarious condition. I have been able to do nothing in science of late. My kind friend Asa Gray often writes to me and tells me of the warm discussions on the "Origin of Species" in the United States. Whenever you are strong enough to read it, I know you will be dead against me, but I know equally well that your opposition will be liberal and philosophical. And this is a good deal more than I can say of all my opponents in this country. I have not yet seen Agassiz's attack (109/1. "Silliman's Journal," July, 1860. A passage from Agassiz's review is given by Mr. Huxley in Darwin's "Life and Letters," II., page 184.), but I hope to find it at home when I return in a few days, for I have been for several weeks away from home on my daughter's account. Prof. Silliman sent me an extremely kind message by Asa Gray that your Journal would be open to a reply by me. I cannot decide till I see it, but on principle I have resolved to avoid answering anything, as it consumes much time, often temper, and I have said my say in the "Origin." No one person understands my views and has defended them so well as A. Gray, though he does not by any means go all the way with me. There was much discussion on the subject at the British Association at Oxford, and I had many defenders, and my side seems (for I was not there) almost to have got the best of the battle. Your correspondent and my neighbour, J. Lubbock, goes on working at such spare time as he has. This is an egotistical note, but I have not seen a naturalist for months. Most sincerely and deeply do I hope that this note may find you almost recovered.

I got your note a few weeks ago letting me know that you couldn’t come to England, which I truly regretted, as I would have really liked to meet you in person. You gave me an updated, but not great, update on your health. I would appreciate a line at some point to let me know how you’re doing. We've had a terrible summer, mainly because my oldest daughter has been seriously ill for a long time; she is improving a bit but is still in a delicate situation. I haven’t been able to focus on my scientific work lately. My kind friend Asa Gray often writes to me about the lively discussions on the "Origin of Species" happening in the United States. Whenever you’re well enough to read it, I know you will disagree with me, but I also know that your criticism will be fair and thoughtful. That’s a lot more than I can say about my other critics here. I haven’t seen Agassiz’s critique yet, but I hope to find it when I get home in a few days, as I've been away for several weeks due to my daughter. Prof. Silliman sent me a very kind message through Asa Gray saying that your Journal would be open to a response from me. I can’t decide until I see it, but I’ve made a principle decision to avoid responding to anything, as it takes up a lot of time and often my patience, and I've already expressed my thoughts in the "Origin." No one understands my views or defends them as well as A. Gray, even though he doesn’t completely agree with me. There was a lot of discussion on the topic at the British Association meeting in Oxford, and I had many supporters, and it seems (since I wasn't there) that my side almost came out on top. Your correspondent and my neighbor, J. Lubbock, continues to work in the little spare time he has. This is a bit self-centered, but I haven’t spoken to a naturalist in months. I sincerely hope this note finds you nearly recovered.

LETTER 110. TO W.H. HARVEY.

(110/1. See Letter 95, note. This letter was written in reply to a long one from W.H. Harvey, dated August 24th, 1860. Harvey had already published a serio-comic squib and a review, to which references are given in the "Life and Letters," II., pages 314 and 375; but apparently he had not before this time completed the reading of the "Origin.")

(110/1. See Letter 95, note. This letter was written in response to a lengthy one from W.H. Harvey, dated August 24th, 1860. Harvey had already published a humorous piece and a review, with references found in the "Life and Letters," II., pages 314 and 375; however, it seems he had not yet finished reading the "Origin" by this time.)

{August, 1860.}

{August 1860.}

I have read your long letter with much interest, and I thank you for your great liberality in sending it me. But, on reflection, I do not wish to attempt answering any part, except to you privately. Anything said by myself in defence would have no weight; it is best to be defended by others, or not at all. Parts of your letter seem to me, if I may be permitted to say so, very acute and original, and I feel it a great compliment your giving up so much time to my book. But, on the whole, I am disappointed; not from your not concurring with me, for I never expected that, and, indeed, in your remarks on Chapters XII. and XIII., you go much further with me (though a little way) than I ever anticipated, and am much pleased at the result. But on the whole I am disappointed, because it seems to me that you do not understand what I mean by Natural Selection, as shown at page 11 (110/2. Harvey speaks of the perpetuation or selection of the useful, pre-supposing "a vigilant and intelligent agent," which is very much like saying that an intelligent agent is needed to see that the small stones pass through the meshes of a sieve and the big ones remain behind.) of your letter and by several of your remarks. As my book has failed to explain my meaning, it would be hopeless to attempt it in a letter. You speak in the early part of your letter, and at page 9, as if I had said that Natural Selection was the sole agency of modification, whereas I have over and over again, ad nauseam, directly said, and by order of precedence implied (what seems to me obvious) that selection can do nothing without previous variability (see pages 80, 108, 127, 468, 469, etc.), "nothing can be effected unless favourable variations occur." I consider Natural Selection as of such high importance, because it accumulates successive variations in any profitable direction, and thus adapts each new being to its complex conditions of life. The term "selection," I see, deceives many persons, though I see no more reason why it should than elective affinity, as used by the old chemists. If I had to rewrite my book, I would use "natural preservation" or "naturally preserved." I should think you would as soon take an emetic as re-read any part of my book; but if you did, and were to erase selection and selected, and insert preservation and preserved, possibly the subject would be clearer. As you are not singular in misunderstanding my book, I should long before this have concluded that my brains were in a haze had I not found by published reviews, and especially by correspondence, that Lyell, Hooker, Asa Gray, H.C. Watson, Huxley, and Carpenter, and many others, perfectly comprehend what I mean. The upshot of your remarks at page 11 is that my explanation, etc., and the whole doctrine of Natural Selection, are mere empty words, signifying the "order of nature." As the above-named clear-headed men, who do comprehend my views, all go a certain length with me, and certainly do not think it all moonshine, I should venture to suggest a little further reflection on your part. I do not mean by this to imply that the opinion of these men is worth much as showing that I am right, but merely as some evidence that I have clearer ideas than you think, otherwise these same men must be even more muddle-headed than I am; for they have no temptation to deceive themselves. In the forthcoming September (110/3. "American Journal of Science and Arts," September 1860, "Design versus Necessity," reprinted in Asa Gray's "Darwiniana," 1876, page 62.) number of the "American Journal of Science" there is an interesting and short theological article (by Asa Gray), which gives incidentally with admirable clearness the theory of Natural Selection, and therefore might be worth your reading. I think that the theological part would interest you.

I’ve read your lengthy letter with great interest, and I really appreciate you taking the time to send it to me. However, after some thought, I don’t want to respond to any part of it, except privately to you. Anything I might say in defense wouldn’t carry much weight; it’s better to be defended by others or not at all. Some parts of your letter strike me as very insightful and original, and I’m honored that you spent so much time on my book. But overall, I’m disappointed—not because you don’t agree with me, as I never expected that. In fact, in your comments on Chapters XII and XIII, you actually align with me more than I anticipated, and I’m pleased with that outcome. However, I’m disappointed mainly because it seems you don’t fully grasp what I mean by Natural Selection, as suggested on page 11 and in some of your remarks. My book must not have clearly conveyed my meaning, and it would be pointless to try to explain it in a letter. In the early part of your letter and on page 9, you seem to suggest that I claim Natural Selection is the only mechanism of change, but I’ve repeatedly stated—perhaps to the point of frustration—that selection can accomplish nothing without prior variability (see pages 80, 108, 127, 468, 469, etc.). I believe Natural Selection is incredibly important because it gathers successive variations in useful directions, thus adapting each new being to its complex conditions of life. The term "selection" seems to confuse many people, though I see no more reason for this than for the term "elective affinity" used by old chemists. If I were to rewrite my book, I would say "natural preservation" or "naturally preserved." I imagine you would prefer to take medicine rather than re-read any part of my book; but if you did, and replaced the terms selection and selected with preservation and preserved, perhaps the subject would become clearer. You’re not the only one misunderstanding my book; I would have assumed my thoughts were muddled by now if I hadn’t realized through published reviews and especially through correspondence that Lyell, Hooker, Asa Gray, H.C. Watson, Huxley, Carpenter, and many others understand my perspective perfectly. The essence of your comments on page 11 suggests that my explanation and the entire doctrine of Natural Selection are mere empty concepts, representing the “order of nature.” Since the aforementioned clear-minded individuals do follow me to a certain extent and certainly don’t dismiss it as nonsense, I encourage you to reflect a bit further on this. I don’t mean to imply that their opinions validate my correctness, but rather that they suggest I have clearer ideas than you realize; otherwise, they would have to be even more confused than I am, as they have no reason to deceive themselves. In the upcoming September issue of the "American Journal of Science," there’s a brief and interesting theological article by Asa Gray that clearly explains the theory of Natural Selection, which might be worth your time to read. I think the theological part would interest you.

You object to all my illustrations. They are all necessarily conjectural, and may be all false; but they were the best I could give. The bear case (110/4. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 184. See Letter 120.) has been well laughed at, and disingenuously distorted by some into my saying that a bear could be converted into a whale. As it offended persons, I struck it out in the second edition; but I still maintain that there is no especial difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits,—no more difficulty than man has found in increasing the crop of the pigeon, by continued selection, until it is literally as big as the whole rest of the body. If this had not been known, how absurd it would have appeared to say that the crop of a bird might be increased till it became like a balloon!

You disagree with all my examples. They are all necessarily speculative and could all be incorrect, but they were the best I could provide. The bear case (110/4. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 184. See Letter 120.) has been laughed at and misrepresented by some as me claiming that a bear could turn into a whale. Since it upset people, I removed it in the second edition; however, I still believe that there's no specific challenge in a bear’s mouth enlarging to any useful extent for changing its habits—no more challenging than what humans have accomplished in selectively breeding pigeons to the point that their crops are literally as large as the rest of their bodies. If this wasn’t known, how ridiculous would it sound to claim that a bird’s crop could be enlarged until it resembled a balloon!

With respect to the ostrich, I believe that the wings have been reduced, and are not in course of development, because the whole structure of a bird is essentially formed for flight; and the ostrich is essentially a bird. You will see at page 182 of the "Origin" a somewhat analogous discussion. At page 450 of the second edition I have pointed out the essential distinction between a nascent and rudimentary organ. If you prefer the more complex view that the progenitor of the ostrich lost its wings, and that the present ostrich is regaining them, I have nothing to say in opposition.

Regarding the ostrich, I think that the wings have shrunk and are not evolving, because a bird's entire structure is basically built for flying; and the ostrich is fundamentally a bird. You can find a similar discussion on page 182 of the "Origin." On page 450 of the second edition, I've highlighted the key difference between a developing and a rudimentary organ. If you prefer the more complicated perspective that the ancestor of the ostrich lost its wings and that the current ostrich is getting them back, I won’t argue against that.

With respect to trees on islands, I collected some cases, but took the main facts from Alph. De Candolle, and thought they might be trusted. My explanation may be grossly wrong; but I am not convinced it is so, and I do not see the full force of your argument of certain herbaceous orders having been developed into trees in certain rare cases on continents. The case seems to me to turn altogether on the question whether generally herbaceous orders more frequently afford trees and bushes on islands than on continents, relatively to their areas. (110/5. In the "Origin," Edition I., page 392, the author points out that in the presence of competing trees an herbaceous plant would have little chance of becoming arborescent; but on an island, with only other herbaceous plants as competitors, it might gain an advantage by overtopping its fellows, and become tree-like. Harvey writes: "What you say (page 392) of insular trees belonging to orders which elsewhere include only herbaceous species seems to me to be unsupported by sufficient evidence. You cite no particular trees, and I may therefore be wrong in guessing that the orders you allude to are Scrophularineae and Compositae; and the insular trees the Antarctic Veronicas and the arborescent Compositae of St. Helena, Tasmania, etc. But in South Africa Halleria (Scrophularineae) is often as large and woody as an apple tree; and there are several South African arborescent Compositae (Senecio and Oldenburgia). Besides, in Tasmania at least, the arborescent Composites are not found competing with herbaceous plants alone, and growing taller and taller by overtopping them...; for the most arborescent of them all (Eurybia argophylla, the Musk tree) grows...in Eucalyptus forests. And so of the South African Halleria, which is a tree among trees. What the conditions of the arborescent Gerania of the Sandwich Islands may be I am unable to say...I cannot remember any other instances, nor can I accept your explanation in any other of the cases I have cited.")

Regarding trees on islands, I've gathered some examples, but relied mainly on Alph. De Candolle, believing his findings to be reliable. My explanation might be completely wrong; however, I'm not convinced of that, and I struggle to grasp the full strength of your argument that certain herbaceous groups have turned into trees in some rare instances on continents. To me, the issue primarily hinges on whether herbaceous groups generally produce trees and shrubs more frequently on islands than they do on continents, in relation to their size. (110/5. In the "Origin," Edition I., page 392, the author states that in the presence of competing trees, a herbaceous plant would have little chance of becoming tree-like; but on an island, with only other herbaceous plants as competitors, it might gain an edge by growing taller than its peers and becoming tree-like. Harvey writes: "What you mention (page 392) about insular trees belonging to groups that elsewhere consist only of herbaceous species seems to me to lack sufficient evidence. You don't specify any particular trees, so I might be

In page 4 of your letter you say you give up many book-species as separate creations: I give up all, and you infer that our difference is only in degree and not in kind. I dissent from this; for I give a distinct reason how far I go in giving up species. I look at all forms, which resemble each other homologically or embryologically, as certainly descended from the same species.

On page 4 of your letter, you say you consider many types of organisms as separate creations. I consider all of them as common origins, and you suggest that our disagreement is just a matter of degree, not kind. I disagree with that; I have a specific reason for how far I go in rejecting the concept of separate species. I believe that all forms that resemble each other in terms of structure or development are definitely descended from the same species.

You hit me hard and fairly (110/6. Harvey writes: "You ask—were all the infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed, or as full grown? To this it is sufficient to reply, was your primordial organism, or were your four or five progenitors created as egg, seed, or full grown? Neither theory attempts to solve this riddle, nor yet the riddle of the Omphalos." The latter point, which Mr. Darwin refuses to give up, is at page 483 of the "Origin," "and, in the case of mammals, were they created bearing the false marks of nourishment from the mother's womb?" In the third edition of the "Origin," 1861, page 517, the author adds, after the last-cited passage: "Undoubtedly these same questions cannot be answered by those who, under the present state of science, believe in the creation of a few aboriginal forms, or of some one form of life. In the sixth edition, probably with a view to the umbilicus, he writes (page 423): "Undoubtedly some of these same questions," etc., etc. From notes in Mr. Darwin's copy of the second edition it is clear that the change in the third edition was chiefly due to Harvey's letter. See Letter 115.) about my question (page 483, "Origin") about creation of eggs or young, etc., (but not about mammals with the mark of the umbilical cord), yet I still have an illogical sort of feeling that there is less difficulty in imagining the creation of an asexual cell, increasing by simple division.

You hit me hard and fairly (110/6. Harvey writes: "You ask—were all the countless types of animals and plants created as eggs or seeds, or as fully grown? To this, it’s enough to respond, were your original organism, or were your four or five ancestors created as an egg, seed, or fully grown? Neither theory attempts to solve this puzzle, nor the puzzle of the Omphalos." The latter point, which Mr. Darwin refuses to abandon, is on page 483 of the "Origin," "and, in the case of mammals, were they created showing false signs of nourishment from the mother’s womb?" In the third edition of the "Origin," 1861, page 517, the author adds after the last-cited passage: "Undoubtedly these same questions cannot be answered by those who, given the current state of science, believe in the creation of a few original forms, or of any one form of life. In the sixth edition, likely regarding the umbilicus, he writes (page 423): "Undoubtedly some of these same questions," etc., etc. From notes in Mr. Darwin's copy of the second edition, it’s clear that the change in the third edition was mainly due to Harvey's letter. See Letter 115.) about my question (page 483, "Origin") regarding the creation of eggs or young, etc., (but not about mammals with the mark of the umbilical cord), yet I still have an illogical feeling that there’s less difficulty in imagining the creation of an asexual cell, growing through simple division.

Page 5 of your letter: I agree to every word about the antiquity of the world, and never saw the case put by any one more strongly or more ably. It makes, however, no more impression on me as an objection than does the astronomer when he puts on a few hundred million miles to the distance of the fixed stars. To compare very small things with great, Lingula, etc., remaining nearly unaltered from the Silurian epoch to the present day, is like the dovecote pigeons still being identical with wild Rock-pigeons, whereas its "fancy" offspring have been immensely modified, and are still being modified, by means of artificial selection.

Page 5 of your letter: I agree with everything you said about the age of the world, and I've never seen anyone make the case more strongly or skillfully. However, it doesn't have any more effect on me as an objection than when an astronomer adds a few hundred million miles to the distance of the fixed stars. Comparing very small things, like Lingula, that have hardly changed since the Silurian period to the present day, is like the fact that domesticated pigeons are still the same as wild rock pigeons, while their "fancy" descendants have been drastically altered and continue to change through artificial selection.

You put the difficulty of the first modification of the first protozoon admirably. I assure you that immediately after the first edition was published this occurred to me, and I thought of inserting it in the second edition. I did not, because we know not in the least what the first germ of life was, nor have we any fact at all to guide us in our speculations on the kind of change which its offspring underwent. I dissent quite from what you say of the myriads of years it would take to people the world with such imagined protozoon. In how very short a time Ehrenberg calculated that a single infusorium might make a cube of rock! A single cube on geometrical progression would make the solid globe in (I suppose) under a century. From what little I know, I cannot help thinking that you underrate the effects of the physical conditions of life on these low organisms. But I fully admit that I can give no sort of answer to your objections; yet I must add that it would be marvellous if any man ever could, assuming for the moment that my theory is true. You beg the question, I think, in saying that Protococcus would be doomed to eternal similarity. Nor can you know that the first germ resembled a Protococcus or any other now living form.

You really captured the challenge of the first modification of the first protozoon well. I want to say that right after the first edition was published, I thought about it and considered adding it to the second edition. I didn’t, because we have no idea what the original germ of life was, nor do we have any facts to help us speculate about the kind of changes its descendants went through. I completely disagree with your point about how many years it would take to populate the world with such imagined protozoa. Ehrenberg calculated that a single infusorium could fill a cube of rock in a surprisingly short time! Just one cube, using geometric progression, could cover the solid globe in what I think would be under a century. From what I know, I really think you underestimate how much physical conditions affect these simple organisms. But I fully admit that I can’t provide any sort of response to your objections; still, I have to say it would be amazing if anyone could, assuming for the moment that my theory is correct. I think you’re assuming the conclusion when you say that Protococcus would be stuck in eternal similarity. Also, you can’t know that the first germ looked like a Protococcus or any other living form today.

Page 12 of your letter: There is nothing in my theory necessitating in each case progression of organisation, though Natural Selection tends in this line, and has generally thus acted. An animal, if it become fitted by selection to live the life, for instance, of a parasite, will generally become degraded. I have much regretted that I did not make this part of the subject clearer. I left out this and many other subjects, which I now see ought to have been introduced. I have inserted a discussion on this subject in the foreign editions. (110/7. In the third Edition a discussion on this point is added in Chapter IV.) In no case will any organic being tend to retrograde, unless such retrogradation be an advantage to its varying offspring; and it is difficult to see how going back to the structure of the unknown supposed original protozoon could ever be an advantage.

Page 12 of your letter: There's nothing in my theory that requires a progression of organization in every case, even though Natural Selection tends to move in that direction and usually operates this way. If an animal adapts through selection to live as a parasite, it will often become less complex. I really regret not making this part of the topic clearer. I omitted this and many other issues that I now realize should have been included. I've added a discussion on this topic in the foreign editions. (110/7. In the third Edition a discussion on this point is added in Chapter IV.) No organic being will tend to go backwards unless that backward change benefits its varying offspring; and it's hard to see how reverting to the structure of the unknown presumed original protozoon could ever be beneficial.

Page 13 of your letter: I have been more glad to read your discussion on "dominant" forms than any part of your letter. (110/8. Harvey writes: "Viewing organic nature in its widest aspect, I think it is unquestionable that the truly dominant races are not those of high, but those of low organisation"; and goes on to quote the potato disease, etc. In the third edition of the "Origin," page 56, a discussion is introduced defining the author's use of the term "dominant.") I can now see that I have not been cautious enough in confining my definition and meaning. I cannot say that you have altered my views. If Botrytis {Phytophthora} had exterminated the wild potato, a low form would have conquered a high; but I cannot remember that I have ever said (I am sure I never thought) that a low form would never conquer a high. I have expressly alluded to parasites half exterminating game-animals, and to the struggle for life being sometimes between forms as different as possible: for instance, between grasshoppers and herbivorous quadrupeds. Under the many conditions of life which this world affords, any group which is numerous in individuals and species and is widely distributed, may properly be called dominant. I never dreamed of considering that any one group, under all conditions and throughout the world, would be predominant. How could vertebrata be predominant under the conditions of life in which parasitic worms live? What good would their perfected senses and their intellect serve under such conditions? When I have spoken of dominant forms, it has been in relation to the multiplication of new specific forms, and the dominance of any one species has been relative generally to other members of the same group, or at least to beings exposed to similar conditions and coming into competition. But I daresay that I have not in the "Origin" made myself clear, and space has rendered it impossible. But I thank you most sincerely for your valuable remarks, though I do not agree with them.

Page 13 of your letter: I was more pleased to read your thoughts on "dominant" forms than any other part of your letter. (110/8. Harvey writes: "When looking at organic nature in its broadest sense, I think it's clear that the truly dominant races aren’t the highly organized ones, but the less organized ones"; and he continues to mention the potato disease, etc. In the third edition of the "Origin," page 56, there's a discussion that explains the author's use of the term "dominant.") I now realize that I haven't been careful enough in limiting my definition and meaning. I can't say that you've changed my views. If Botrytis {Phytophthora} had wiped out the wild potato, a lower form would have defeated a higher one; but I don’t recall ever saying (I'm sure I never thought) that a lower form would never defeat a higher. I've specifically mentioned parasites partially wiping out game animals, and that the struggle for survival can sometimes occur between very different forms: for example, between grasshoppers and plant-eating quadrupeds. Considering the many life conditions that exist in this world, any group that is plentiful in individuals and species and widely distributed can accurately be called dominant. I never imagined that any single group would be dominant under all conditions and everywhere in the world. How could vertebrates be dominant in the kind of life conditions that parasitic worms inhabit? What use would their advanced senses and intelligence be in those situations? When I referred to dominant forms, I meant in relation to the increase of new specific forms, and the dominance of any one species has usually been compared to other members of the same group, or at least to beings facing similar conditions and competing for resources. But I suspect that I haven't been clear in the "Origin," and there hasn't been enough space to elaborate. Still, I genuinely appreciate your valuable comments, even if I don't agree with them.

About sudden jumps: I have no objection to them—they would aid me in some cases. All I can say is, that I went into the subject, and found no evidence to make me believe in jumps; and a good deal pointing in the other direction. You will find it difficult (page 14 of your letter) to make a marked line of separation between fertile and infertile crosses. I do not see how the apparently sudden change (for the suddenness of change in a chrysalis is of course largely only apparent) in larvae during their development throws any light on the subject.

About sudden jumps: I don't have any issues with them—they would help me in some situations. All I can say is that I looked into the topic and found no evidence that would lead me to believe in jumps, and quite a bit pointing the other way. You'll find it challenging (page 14 of your letter) to draw a clear line between fertile and infertile crosses. I don’t see how the seemingly sudden change (since the suddenness of change in a chrysalis is mostly just an illusion) in larvae during their development sheds any light on the matter.

I wish I could have made this letter better worth sending to you. I have had it copied to save you at least the intolerable trouble of reading my bad handwriting. Again I thank you for your great liberality and kindness in sending me your criticisms, and I heartily wish we were a little nearer in accord; but we must remain content to be as wide asunder as the poles, but without, thank God, any malice or other ill-feeling.

I wish I could have made this letter more worth sending to you. I had it typed to spare you the frustrating trouble of reading my messy handwriting. Again, I thank you for your generosity and kindness in sharing your feedback, and I really wish we were a bit more in sync; but we have to be okay with being as far apart as the poles, without, thankfully, any bitterness or bad feelings.

LETTER 111. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(111/1. Dr. Asa Gray's articles in the "Atlantic Monthly," July, August, and October, 1860, were published in England as a pamphlet, and form Chapter III. in his "Darwiniana" (1876). See "Life and Letters," II., page 338. The article referred to in the present letter is that in the August number.)

(111/1. Dr. Asa Gray's articles in the "Atlantic Monthly," July, August, and October, 1860, were published in England as a pamphlet and are included as Chapter III in his "Darwiniana" (1876). See "Life and Letters," II., page 338. The article mentioned in this letter is the one from the August issue.)

Down, September 10th {1860}.

Down, September 10, 1860.

I send by this post a review by Asa Gray, so good that I should like you to see it; I must beg for its return. I want to ask, also, your opinion about getting it reprinted in England. I thought of sending it to the Editor of the "Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist." in which two hostile reviews have appeared (although I suppose the "Annals" have a very poor circulation), and asking them in the spirit of fair play to print this, with Asa Gray's name, which I will take the responsibility of adding. Also, as it is long, I would offer to pay expenses.

I’m sending you a review by Asa Gray that’s so good I’d really like you to see it; I’d appreciate it if you could return it. I also want to get your thoughts on having it reprinted in England. I considered sending it to the Editor of the "Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist." where two negative reviews have already been published (though I think the "Annals" has pretty low circulation), and asking them, in the spirit of fairness, to print this one with Asa Gray's name, which I’ll take responsibility for adding. Since it’s lengthy, I’d also be willing to cover any costs.

It is very good, in addition, as bringing in Pictet so largely. (111/2. Pictet (1809-72) wrote a "perfectly fair" review opposed to the "Origin." See "Life and Letters," II., page 297.) Tell me briefly what you think.

It’s great, plus it really brings in Pictet’s perspective. (111/2. Pictet (1809-72) wrote a "perfectly fair" review that disagreed with the "Origin." See "Life and Letters," II., page 297.) Let me know quickly what you think.

What an astonishing expedition this is of Hooker's to Syria! God knows whether it is wise.

What an incredible journey Hooker is taking to Syria! Only God knows if it's a smart move.

How are you and all yours? I hope you are not working too hard. For Heaven's sake, think that you may become such a beast as I am. How goes on the "Nat. Hist. Review?" Talking of reviews, I damned with a good grace the review in the "Athenaeum" (111/3. Review of "The Glaciers of the Alps" ("Athenaeum," September 1, 1860, page 280).) on Tyndall with a mean, scurvy allusion to you. It is disgraceful about Tyndall,—in fact, doubting his veracity.

How are you and your family? I hope you’re not working too hard. For heaven’s sake, just think about how you could end up as much of a beast as I am. How's the "Nat. Hist. Review" going? Speaking of reviews, I gave a polite but scathing response to the review in the "Athenaeum" (111/3. Review of "The Glaciers of the Alps" ("Athenaeum," September 1, 1860, page 280)) about Tyndall, which had a mean, sneaky reference to you. It's disgraceful what they're saying about Tyndall—doubting his honesty, in fact.

I am very tired, and hate nearly the whole world. So good-night, and take care of your digestion, which means brain.

I’m really tired and dislike almost everyone. So good night, and take care of your digestion, which means your brain.

LETTER 112. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, 26th {September 1860}.

It has just occurred to me that I took no notice of your questions on extinction in St. Helena. I am nearly sure that Hooker has information on the extinction of plants (112/1. "Principles of Geology," Volume II. (Edition X., 1868), page 453. Facts are quoted from Hooker illustrating the extermination of plants in St. Helena.), but I cannot remember where I have seen it. One may confidently assume that many insects were exterminated.

It just hit me that I didn’t pay attention to your questions about extinction in St. Helena. I’m pretty sure Hooker has information on the extinction of plants (112/1. "Principles of Geology," Volume II. (Edition X., 1868), page 453. Facts are quoted from Hooker illustrating the extermination of plants in St. Helena.), but I can't recall where I saw it. One can safely assume that many insects were wiped out.

By the way, I heard lately from Wollaston, who told me that he had just received eminently Madeira and Canary Island insect forms from the Cape of Good Hope, to which trifling distance, if he is logical, he will have to extend his Atlantis! I have just received your letter, and am very much pleased that you approve. But I am utterly disgusted and ashamed about the dingo. I cannot think how I could have misunderstood the paper so grossly. I hope I have not blundered likewise in its co-existence with extinct species: what horrid blundering! I am grieved to hear that you think I must work in the notes in the text; but you are so much better a judge that I will obey. I am sorry that you had the trouble of returning the Dog MS., which I suppose I shall receive to-morrow.

By the way, I recently heard from Wollaston, who told me that he just got some interesting insect samples from Madeira and the Canary Islands, which are pretty much from the Cape of Good Hope. If he's being logical, he might have to expand his idea of Atlantis! I just received your letter and I'm really glad to hear you approve. But I'm completely disgusted and embarrassed about the dingo. I can't believe I misunderstood the paper so badly. I hope I didn't mess up the part about its existence alongside extinct species: what a terrible mistake! I'm sorry to hear that you think I should include notes in the text; you have much better judgment, so I'll follow your advice. I regret that you had to go through the hassle of returning the Dog manuscript, which I expect to receive tomorrow.

I mean to give good woodcuts of all the chief races of pigeons. (112/2. "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.)

I plan to provide detailed illustrations of all the main types of pigeons. (112/2. "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.)

Except the C. oenas (112/3. The Columba oenas of Europe roosts on trees and builds its nest in holes, either in trees or the ground ("Var. of Animals," Volume I., page 183).) (which is partly, indeed almost entirely, a wood pigeon), there is no other rock pigeon with which our domestic pigeon would cross—that is, if several exceedingly close geographical races of C. livia, which hardly any ornithologist looks at as true species, be all grouped under C. livia. (112/4. Columba livia, the Rock-pigeon. "We may conclude with confidence that all the domestic races, notwithstanding their great amount of difference, are descended from the Columba livia, including under this name certain wild races" (op. cit., Volume I., page 223).)

Except for the C. oenas (112/3. The Columba oenas of Europe roosts on trees and builds its nest in holes, either in trees or on the ground ("Var. of Animals," Volume I., page 183).) (which is mostly, if not entirely, a wood pigeon), there is no other rock pigeon that our domestic pigeon would interbreed with—that is, if several very closely related geographical varieties of C. livia, which hardly any ornithologist considers true species, are all categorized under C. livia. (112/4. Columba livia, the Rock-pigeon. "We can confidently conclude that all domestic varieties, despite their significant differences, are descended from the Columba livia, including certain wild varieties under this name" (op. cit., Volume I., page 223).)

I am writing higgledy-piggledy, as I re-read your letter. I thought that my letter had been much wilder than yours. I quite feel the comfort of writing when one may "alter one's speculations the day after." It is beyond my knowledge to weigh ranks of birds and monotremes; in the respiratory and circulatory system and muscular energy I believe birds are ahead of all mammals.

I’m writing in a bit of a jumble as I read your letter again. I thought my letter was way wilder than yours. I really enjoy the comfort of writing when you can "change your thoughts the next day." I have no idea how to compare birds and monotremes; in terms of the respiratory and circulatory systems and muscular energy, I think birds are better than all mammals.

I knew that you must have known about New Guinea; but in writing to you I never make myself civil!

I figured you must have heard about New Guinea; but when I write to you, I never manage to be polite!

After treating some half-dozen or dozen domestic animals in the same manner as I treat dogs, I intended to have a chapter of conclusions. But Heaven knows when I shall finish: I get on very slowly. You would be surprised how long it took me to pick out what seemed useful about dogs out of multitudes of details.

After taking care of about six or twelve pets just like I do with dogs, I planned to write a chapter with my conclusions. But who knows when I’ll actually finish: I’m really slow at this. You’d be amazed at how long it took me to figure out what was useful about dogs from all the details.

I see the force of your remark about more isolated races of man in old times, and therefore more in number. It seems to me difficult to weigh probabilities. Perhaps so, if you refer to very slight differences in the races: to make great differences much time would be required, and then, even at the earliest period I should have expected one race to have spread, conquered, and exterminated the others.

I understand your point about how in ancient times, there were more isolated human races, which likely led to a greater number of them. It’s tough to evaluate probabilities. Maybe you’re right if you’re talking about very minor differences between the races; to create significant differences would take a lot of time. Even at the earliest period, I would have thought one race would have expanded, dominated, and wiped out the others.

With respect to Falconer's series of Elephants (112/5. In 1837 Dr. Falconer and Sir Proby Cautley collected a large number of fossil remains from the Siwalik Hills. Falconer and Cautley, "Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis," 1845-49.), I think the case could be answered better than I have done in the "Origin," page 334. (112/6. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 334. "It is no real objection to the truth of the statement that the fauna of each period as a whole is nearly intermediate in character between the preceding and succeeding faunas, that certain genera offer exceptions to the rule. For instance, mastodons and elephants, when arranged by Dr. Falconer in two series, first according to their mutual affinities and then according to their periods of existence, do not accord in arrangement. The species extreme in character are not the oldest, or the most recent; nor are those which are intermediate in character intermediate in age. But supposing for an instant, in this and other such cases, that the record of the first appearance and disappearance of the species was perfect, we have no reason to believe that forms successively produced necessarily endure for corresponding lengths of time. A very ancient form might occasionally last much longer than a form elsewhere subsequently produced, especially in the case of terrestrial productions inhabiting separated districts" (pages 334-5). The same words occur in the later edition of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 306.) All these new discoveries show how imperfect the discovered series is, which Falconer thought years ago was nearly perfect.

Regarding Falconer's series of Elephants (112/5. In 1837, Dr. Falconer and Sir Proby Cautley gathered a significant number of fossil remains from the Siwalik Hills. Falconer and Cautley, "Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis," 1845-49.), I believe I could have addressed the case better than I did in the "Origin," page 334. (112/6. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 334. "It is not a real objection to the truth of the statement that the fauna of each period, as a whole, is almost intermediate in nature between the prior and following faunas, that certain genera present exceptions to the rule. For example, mastodons and elephants, when categorized by Dr. Falconer in two series—first by their mutual affinities and then by their periods of existence—do not align in arrangement. The species that are extreme in nature are not necessarily the oldest or the most recent; nor are those that are intermediate in nature also intermediate in age. But let's assume for a moment that the record of the first appearance and disappearance of the species was flawless; we have no reason to think that forms produced in succession necessarily exist for corresponding time spans. An ancient form might occasionally persist far longer than a form that appeared later in a different location, especially for terrestrial species inhabiting isolated areas" (pages 334-5). The same words appear in the later edition of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 306.) All these new discoveries illustrate how incomplete the discovered series is, which Falconer believed years ago to be nearly perfect.

I will send to-day or to-morrow two articles by Asa Gray. The longer one (now not finally corrected) will come out in the October "Atlantic Monthly," and they can be got at Trubner's. Hearty thanks for all your kindness.

I will send two articles by Asa Gray today or tomorrow. The longer one (not fully corrected yet) will be published in the October "Atlantic Monthly," and you can find them at Trubner's. Thanks a lot for all your kindness.

Do not hurry over Asa Gray. He strikes me as one of the best reasoners and writers I ever read. He knows my book as well as I do myself.

Do not rush through Asa Gray. He seems to me to be one of the best thinkers and writers I've ever read. He knows my book as well as I do.

LETTER 113. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October 3rd {1860}.

Your last letter has interested me much in many ways.

Your last letter really caught my interest in several ways.

I enclose a letter of Wyman's which touches on brains. Wyman is mistaken in supposing that I did not know that the Cave-rat was an American form; I made special enquiries. He does not know that the eye of the Tucotuco was carefully dissected.

I’m enclosing a letter from Wyman that discusses brains. Wyman is wrong to think that I didn’t realize the Cave-rat was an American species; I asked specifically about it. He isn’t aware that the eye of the Tucotuco was thoroughly examined.

With respect to reviews by A. Gray. I thought of sending the Dialogue to the "Saturday Review" in a week's time or so, as they have lately discussed Design. (113/1. "Discussion between two Readers of Darwin's Treatise on the Origin of Species, upon its Natural Theology" ("Amer. Journ. Sci." Volume XXX, page 226, 1860). Reprinted in "Darwiniana," 1876, page 62. The article begins with the following question: "First Reader—Is Darwin's theory atheistic or pantheistic? Or does it tend to atheism or pantheism?" The discussion is closed by the Second Reader, who thus sums up his views: "Wherefore we may insist that, for all that yet appears, the argument for design, as presented by the natural theologians, is just as good now, if we accept Darwin's theory, as it was before the theory was promulgated; and that the sceptical juryman, who was about to join the other eleven in an unanimous verdict in favour of design, finds no good excuse for keeping the Court longer waiting.") I have sent the second, or August, "Atlantic" article to the "Annals and Mag. of Nat. History." (113/2. "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume VI., pages 373-86, 1860. (From the "Atlantic Monthly," August, 1860.)) The copy which you have I want to send to Pictet, as I told A. Gray I would, thinking from what he said he would like this to be done. I doubt whether it would be possible to get the October number reprinted in this country; so that I am in no hurry at all for this.

Regarding the reviews by A. Gray, I considered sending the Dialogue to the "Saturday Review" in about a week since they've recently discussed Design. (113/1. "Discussion between two Readers of Darwin's Treatise on the Origin of Species, upon its Natural Theology" ("Amer. Journ. Sci." Volume XXX, page 226, 1860). Reprinted in "Darwiniana," 1876, page 62. The article starts with this question: "First Reader—Is Darwin's theory atheistic or pantheistic? Or does it lean towards atheism or pantheism?" The discussion wraps up with the Second Reader, who summarizes his views: "Therefore, we can assert that, for all we know, the argument for design, as presented by the natural theologians, is just as strong now, if we accept Darwin's theory, as it was before the theory was proposed; and that the skeptical juryman, who was about to side with the other eleven in a unanimous verdict in favor of design, has no solid reason to keep the Court waiting.") I've sent the second article from the August "Atlantic" to the "Annals and Mag. of Nat. History." (113/2. "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume VI., pages 373-86, 1860. (From the "Atlantic Monthly," August, 1860.)) I want to send the copy that you have to Pictet, as I mentioned to A. Gray I would, thinking that he would appreciate it based on what he said. I doubt that it would be possible to get the October issue reprinted in this country, so I’m not in a rush for it at all.

I had a letter a few weeks ago from Symonds on the imperfection of the Geological Record, less clear and forcible than I expected. I answered him at length and very civilly, though I could hardly make out what he was driving at. He spoke about you in a way which it did me good to read.

I received a letter a few weeks ago from Symonds about the flaws in the Geological Record, but it wasn’t as clear and compelling as I expected. I replied to him in detail and very politely, even though I could barely figure out his point. He mentioned you in a way that really made me feel good.

I am extremely glad that you like A. Gray's reviews. How generous and unselfish he has been in all his labour! Are you not struck by his metaphors and similes? I have told him he is a poet and not a lawyer.

I’m really glad to hear that you enjoy A. Gray's reviews. He’s been so generous and selfless in all his work! Aren't you impressed by his metaphors and similes? I’ve told him he’s a poet, not a lawyer.

I should altogether doubt on turtles being converted into land tortoises on any one island. Remember how closely similar tortoises are on all continents, as well as islands; they must have all descended from one ancient progenitor, including the gigantic tortoise of the Himalaya.

I really doubt that turtles become land tortoises on any single island. Just think about how similar tortoises are across all continents and islands; they must have all come from one ancient ancestor, including the giant tortoise of the Himalayas.

I think you must be cautious in not running the convenient doctrine that only one species out of very many ever varies. Reflect on such cases as the fauna and flora of Europe, North America, and Japan, which are so similar, and yet which have a great majority of their species either specifically distinct, or forming well-marked races. We must in such cases incline to the belief that a multitude of species were once identically the same in all the three countries when under a warmer climate and more in connection; and have varied in all the three countries. I am inclined to believe that almost every species (as we see with nearly all our domestic productions) varies sufficiently for Natural Selection to pick out and accumulate new specific differences, under new organic and inorganic conditions of life, whenever a place is open in the polity of nature. But looking to a long lapse of time and to the whole world, or to large parts of the world, I believe only one or a few species of each large genus ultimately becomes victorious, and leaves modified descendants. To give an imaginary instance: the jay has become modified in the three countries into (I believe) three or four species; but the jay genus is not, apparently, so dominant a group as the crows; and in the long run probably all the jays will be exterminated and be replaced perhaps by some modified crows.

I think you should be careful not to fall into the convenient belief that only one species out of many ever changes. Consider the examples of the plants and animals in Europe, North America, and Japan, which are quite similar yet have many species that are either completely distinct or form clear subspecies. In these cases, we should lean toward the idea that many species were once identical across all three regions when the climate was warmer and they were more connected; and they have since diverged in these three areas. I believe that almost every species (as nearly all our domesticated varieties show) varies enough for Natural Selection to identify and build new specific differences when conditions in nature allow. However, looking at a long time frame and considering the entire world, or large parts of it, I think only one or a few species of each major genus ultimately succeed and leave behind modified descendants. For example, the jay has changed in the three regions into what I think are three or four species; however, the jay genus doesn’t seem as dominant as the crows do; and over time, it’s likely that all the jays will be wiped out and replaced, perhaps by some evolved crows.

I merely give this illustration to show what seems to me probable.

I just use this example to show what I think is likely.

But oh! what work there is before we shall understand the genealogy of organic beings!

But oh! what a task we have ahead of us before we can understand the family tree of living things!

With respect to the Apteryx, I know not enough of anatomy; but ask Dr. F. whether the clavicle, etc., do not give attachment to some of the muscles of respiration. If my views are at all correct, the wing of the Apteryx (113/3. "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 140.) cannot be (page 452 of the "Origin") a nascent organ, as these wings are useless. I dare not trust to memory, but I know I found the whole sternum always reduced in size in all the fancy and confined pigeons relatively to the same bones in the wild Rock-pigeon: the keel was generally still further reduced relatively to the reduced length of the sternum; but in some breeds it was in a most anomalous manner more prominent. I have got a lot of facts on the reduction of the organs of flight in the pigeon, which took me weeks to work out, and which Huxley thought curious.

Regarding the Apteryx, I don't know enough about anatomy; but you should ask Dr. F. if the clavicle and other bones attach to some of the breathing muscles. If my thoughts are correct, the wing of the Apteryx (113/3. "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 140.) can't really be (page 452 of the "Origin") a developing organ, since these wings don't serve any purpose. I can't fully rely on my memory, but I remember finding that the entire sternum is consistently smaller in all the fancy and breed-specific pigeons compared to the same bones in the wild Rock-pigeon: the keel was usually even more reduced in comparison to the shorter sternum; however, in some breeds, it was oddly more prominent. I have a lot of data on the reduction of flight organs in pigeons, which took me weeks to figure out, and Huxley found it interesting.

I am utterly ashamed, and groan over my handwriting. It was "Natural Preservation." Natural persecution is what the author ought to suffer. It rejoices me that you do not object to the term. Hooker made the same remark that it ought to have been "Variation and Natural Selection." Yet with domestic productions, when selection is spoken of, variation is always implied. But I entirely agree with your and Hooker's remark.

I am completely embarrassed and cringe over my handwriting. It was "Natural Preservation." Natural persecution is what the author should experience. I'm glad you don't mind the term. Hooker pointed out the same thing; it should have been "Variation and Natural Selection." However, when it comes to domestic breeds, variation is always implied when we talk about selection. But I fully agree with your and Hooker's comments.

Have you begun regularly to write your book on the antiquity of man? (113/4. Published in 1863.)

Have you started to regularly write your book on the ancient history of humans? (113/4. Published in 1863.)

I do NOT agree with your remark that I make Natural Selection do too much work. You will perhaps reply that every man rides his hobby-horse to death; and that I am in the galloping state.

I do NOT agree with your comment that I make Natural Selection do too much work. You might respond that everyone rides their own hobby-horse to death and that I'm in a galloping state.

LETTER 114. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, Friday 5th {October, 1860}.

LETTER 114. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, Friday, October 5, 1860.

I have two notes to thank you for, and I return Wollaston. It has always seemed to me rather strange that Forbes, Wollaston and Co. should argue, from the presence of allied, and not identical species in islands, for the former continuity of land.

I have two notes to thank you for, and I'm returning Wollaston. It has always seemed a bit odd to me that Forbes, Wollaston, and Co. would argue for the former continuity of land based on the presence of related, but not identical, species on islands.

They argue, I suppose, from the species being allied in different regions of the same continent, though specifically distinct. But I think one might on the creative doctrine argue with equal force in a directly reverse manner, and say that, as species are so often markedly distinct, yet allied, on islands, all our continents existed as islands first, and their inhabitants were first created on these islands, and since became mingled together, so as not to be so distinct as they now generally are on islands.

They argue, I guess, based on the fact that species are related in different areas of the same continent, even though they are specifically different. But I think one could argue just as strongly in the opposite direction, saying that since species can be very distinct yet still related on islands, all our continents were originally islands, and their inhabitants were first created on these islands. As they mixed together, they became less distinct than they usually are on islands.

LETTER 115. TO H.G. BRONN. Down, October 5th {1860}.

I ought to apologise for troubling you, but I have at last carefully read your excellent criticisms on my book. (115/1. Bronn added critical remarks to his German translation of the "Origin": see "Life and Letters," II., page 279.) I agree with much of them, and wholly with your final sentence. The objections and difficulties which may be urged against my view are indeed heavy enough almost to break my back, but it is not yet broken! You put very well and very fairly that I can in no one instance explain the course of modification in any particular instance. I could make some sort of answer to your case of the two rats; and might I not turn round and ask him who believes in the separate creation of each species, why one rat has a longer tail or shorter ears than another? I presume that most people would say that these characters were of some use, or stood in some connection with other parts; and if so, Natural Selection would act on them. But as you put the case, it tells well against me. You argue most justly against my question, whether the many species were created as eggs (115/2. See Letter 110.) or as mature, etc. I certainly had no right to ask that question. I fully agree that there might have been as well a hundred thousand creations as eight or ten, or only one. But then, on the view of eight or ten creations (i.e. as many as there are distinct types of structure) we can on my view understand the homological and embryological resemblance of all the organisms of each type, and on this ground almost alone I disbelieve in the innumerable acts of creation. There are only two points on which I think you have misunderstood me. I refer only to one Glacial period as affecting the distribution of organic beings; I did not wish even to allude to the doubtful evidence of glacial action in the Permian and Carboniferous periods. Secondly, I do not believe that the process of development has always been carried on at the same rate in all different parts of the world. Australia is opposed to such belief. The nearly contemporaneous equal development in past periods I attribute to the slow migration of the higher and more dominant forms over the whole world, and not to independent acts of development in different parts. Lastly, permit me to add that I cannot see the force of your objection, that nothing is effected until the origin of life is explained: surely it is worth while to attempt to follow out the action of electricity, though we know not what electricity is.

I should apologize for bothering you, but I’ve finally taken the time to read your excellent critiques of my book. (115/1. Bronn added critical remarks to his German translation of the "Origin": see "Life and Letters," II., page 279.) I agree with much of what you said, especially your final sentence. The objections and challenges against my view are indeed heavy enough to almost break me, but I’m still standing! You expressed very well and fairly that I can't explain the process of change in any specific instance. I could respond to your example of the two rats; and couldn’t I also ask someone who believes in the separate creation of each species why one rat has a longer tail or shorter ears than another? I assume most people would say these traits were useful in some way or connect to other features; if that’s the case, Natural Selection would act on them. However, as you framed it, it works against me. You make a valid point against my question about whether the many species were created as eggs (115/2. See Letter 110.) or as adults, etc. I certainly had no right to ask that question. I completely agree that there could have been as many as a hundred thousand creations as easily as eight or ten or just one. But from the perspective of eight or ten creations (meaning as many as there are distinct structural types), I can understand the shared structural and embryological similarities among all organisms in each type, and based on this alone I disbelieve in countless acts of creation. There are only two points where I think you’ve misunderstood me. I refer to just one Ice Age affecting the distribution of living things; I didn’t even want to mention the uncertain evidence of glacial activity during the Permian and Carboniferous periods. Also, I don’t believe that the process of development has always occurred at the same pace in every area of the world. Australia contradicts that belief. The nearly simultaneous development in past periods I attribute to the slow migration of the more advanced and dominant forms across the globe, not to separate acts of development in different areas. Finally, let me add that I can’t see the strength of your objection that nothing is accomplished until we explain the origin of life: surely it’s worth trying to follow the action of electricity, even if we don’t know exactly what electricity is.

If you should at any time do me the favour of writing to me, I should be very much obliged if you would inform me whether you have yourself examined Brehm's subspecies of birds; for I have looked through some of his writings, but have never met an ornithologist who believed in his {illegible}. Are these subspecies really characteristic of certain different regions of Germany?

If you ever take the time to write to me, I would really appreciate it if you could let me know whether you have personally looked into Brehm's subspecies of birds; I've gone through some of his writings, but I've never encountered an ornithologist who supports his {illegible}. Are these subspecies actually typical of specific regions in Germany?

Should you write, I should much like to know how the German edition sells.

Should you write, I would really like to know how the German edition is selling.

LETTER 116. TO J.S. HENSLOW. October 26th {1860}.

Many thanks for your note and for all the trouble about the seeds, which will be most useful to me next spring. On my return home I will send the shillings. (116/1. Shillings for the little girls in Henslow's parish who collected seeds for Darwin.) I concluded that Dr. Bree had blundered about the Celts. I care not for his dull, unvarying abuse of me, and singular misrepresentation. But at page 244 he in fact doubts my deliberate word, and that is the act of a man who has not the soul of a gentleman in him. Kingsley is "the celebrated author and divine" (116/2. "Species not Transmutable," by C.R. Bree. After quoting from the "Origin," Edition II., page 481, the words in which a celebrated author and divine confesses that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms, etc.," Dr. Bree goes on: "I think we ought to have had the name of this divine given with this remarkable statement. I confess that I have not yet fully made up my mind that any divine could have ever penned lines so fatal to the truths he is called upon to teach.") whose striking sentence I give in the second edition with his permission. I did not choose to ask him to let me use his name, and as he did not volunteer, I had of course no choice. (116/3. We are indebted to Mr. G.W. Prothero for calling our attention to the following striking passage from the works of a divine of this period:—"Just a similar scepticism has been evinced by nearly all the first physiologists of the day, who have joined in rejecting the development theories of Lamarck and the 'Vestiges'...Yet it is now acknowledged under the high sanction of the name of Owen that 'creation' is only another name for our ignorance of the mode of production...while a work has now appeared by a naturalist of the most acknowledged authority, Mr. Darwin's masterly volume on the 'Origin of Species,' by the law of 'natural selection,' which now substantiates on undeniable grounds the very principle so long denounced by the first naturalists—the origination of new species by natural causes: a work which must soon bring about an entire revolution of opinion in favour of the grand principle of the self-evolving powers of nature."—Prof. Baden Powell's "Study of the Evidences of Christianity," "Essays and Reviews," 7th edition, 1861 (pages 138, 139).)

Thanks a lot for your note and for all the effort regarding the seeds, which will be really helpful to me next spring. When I get back home, I will send the shillings. (116/1. Shillings for the little girls in Henslow's parish who collected seeds for Darwin.) I figured that Dr. Bree made a mistake about the Celts. I don’t care about his boring, constant criticism of me, and his strange misrepresentation. But on page 244, he actually questions my careful wording, and that shows he lacks the character of a true gentleman. Kingsley is "the celebrated author and divine" (116/2. "Species not Transmutable," by C.R. Bree. After quoting from the "Origin," Edition II., page 481, the words in which a celebrated author and divine confesses that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms, etc.," Dr. Bree goes on: "I think we ought to have had the name of this divine given with this remarkable statement. I confess that I have not yet fully made up my mind that any divine could have ever penned lines so fatal to the truths he is called upon to teach.") whose striking sentence I include in the second edition with his permission. I didn't want to ask him to let me use his name, and since he didn’t offer, I had no choice. (116/3. We are thankful to Mr. G.W. Prothero for bringing our attention to the following striking passage from the works of a divine of this period:—"Just a similar skepticism has been shown by nearly all the first physiologists of the day, who have joined in rejecting the development theories of Lamarck and the 'Vestiges'...Yet it is now acknowledged under the high sanction of the name of Owen that 'creation' is only another name for our ignorance of the mode of production...while a work has now appeared by a naturalist of the most acknowledged authority, Mr. Darwin's masterly volume on the 'Origin of Species,' by the law of 'natural selection,' which now substantiates on undeniable grounds the very principle so long denounced by the first naturalists—the origination of new species by natural causes: a work which must soon bring about an entire revolution of opinion in favour of the grand principle of the self-evolving powers of nature."—Prof. Baden Powell's "Study of the Evidences of Christianity," "Essays and Reviews," 7th edition, 1861 (pages 138, 139).)

Dr. Freke has sent me his paper, which is far beyond my scope—something like the capital quiz in the "Anti-Jacobin" on my grandfather, which was quoted in the "Quarterly Review."

Dr. Freke has sent me his paper, which is way over my head—kind of like the capital quiz in the "Anti-Jacobin" about my grandfather, which was mentioned in the "Quarterly Review."

LETTER 117. TO D.T. ANSTED.

(117/1. The following letter was published in Professor Meldola's presidential address to the Entomological Society, 1897, and to him we are indebted for a copy.)

(117/1. The following letter was published in Professor Meldola's presidential address to the Entomological Society in 1897, and we are grateful to him for providing a copy.)

15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October 27th {1860}.

As I am away from home on account of my daughter's health, I do not know your address, and fly this at random, and it is of very little consequence if it never reaches you.

As I'm away from home because of my daughter's health, I don't know your address and I'm sending this out randomly. It doesn't really matter if it never gets to you.

I have just been reading the greater part of your "Geological Gossip," and have found part very interesting; but I want to express my admiration at the clear and correct manner in which you have given a sketch of Natural Selection. You will think this very slight praise; but I declare that the majority of readers seem utterly incapable of comprehending my long argument. Some of the reviewers, who have servilely stuck to my illustrations and almost to my words, have been correct, but extraordinarily few others have succeeded. I can see plainly, by your new illustrations and manner and order of putting the case, that you thoroughly comprehend the subject. I assure you this is most gratifying to me, and it is the sole way in which the public can be indoctrinated. I am often in despair in making the generality of NATURALISTS even comprehend me. Intelligent men who are not naturalists and have not a bigoted idea of the term species, show more clearness of mind. I think that you have done the subject a real service, and I sincerely thank you. No doubt there will be much error found in my book, but I have great confidence that the main view will be, in time, found correct; for I find, without exception, that those naturalists who went at first one inch with me now go a foot or yard with me.

I just finished reading most of your "Geological Gossip," and I found parts of it really fascinating. I want to express my admiration for the clear and accurate way you’ve outlined Natural Selection. You might think this praise is minimal, but honestly, the majority of readers struggle to grasp my lengthy argument. Some reviewers, who have closely followed my examples and even my wording, have been correct, but very few others have managed that. It's obvious to me, through your new examples and the way you present the information, that you completely understand the topic. I assure you, this really makes me happy, and it’s the only way the public can be educated on the matter. I often feel hopeless trying to get most NATURALISTS to even understand me. Intelligent people who aren't naturalists and don’t have a rigid view of the term species seem to have a clearer perspective. I believe you’ve genuinely contributed to the topic, and I sincerely appreciate it. No doubt there will be a lot of mistakes in my book, but I’m confident that in time, the main idea will be recognized as correct; because I’ve noticed that those naturalists who initially agreed with me just a little now fully support my views.

This note obviously requires no answer.

This note clearly doesn't need a response.

LETTER 118. TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 22nd {1860}.

I thank you sincerely for writing to me and for your very interesting letter. Your name has for very long been familiar to me, and I have heard of your zealous exertions in the cause of Natural History. But I did not know that you had worked with high philosophical questions before your mind. I have an old belief that a good observer really means a good theorist (118/1. For an opposite opinion, see Letter 13.), and I fully expect to find your observations most valuable. I am very sorry to hear that your health is shattered; but I trust under a healthy climate it may be restored. I can sympathise with you fully on this score, for I have had bad health for many years, and fear I shall ever remain a confirmed invalid. I am delighted to hear that you, with all your large practical knowledge of Natural History, anticipated me in many respects and concur with me. As you say, I have been thoroughly well attacked and reviled (especially by entomologists—Westwood, Wollaston, and A. Murray have all reviewed and sneered at me to their hearts' content), but I care nothing about their attacks; several really good judges go a long way with me, and I observe that all those who go some little way tend to go somewhat further. What a fine philosophical mind your friend Mr. Wallace has, and he has acted, in relation to me, like a true man with a noble spirit. I see by your letter that you have grappled with several of the most difficult problems, as it seems to me, in Natural History—such as the distinctions between the different kinds of varieties, representative species, etc. Perhaps I shall find some facts in your paper on intermediate varieties in intermediate regions, on which subject I have found remarkably little information. I cannot tell you how glad I am to hear that you have attended to the curious point of equatorial refrigeration. I quite agree that it must have been small; yet the more I go into that question the more convinced I feel that there was during the Glacial period some migration from north to south. The sketch in the "Origin" gives a very meagre account of my fuller MS. essay on this subject.

Thank you so much for writing to me and for your very interesting letter. I've known your name for a long time, and I've heard about your passionate efforts in the field of Natural History. However, I wasn't aware that you'd engaged with high philosophical questions. I've always believed that a good observer is essentially a good theorist, and I fully expect your observations to be extremely valuable. I'm really sorry to hear that your health is poor; I hope that being in a healthy climate will help you recover. I can completely understand how you feel about this, as I've struggled with my health for many years and worry that I will always be an invalid. I'm excited to learn that, with your extensive practical knowledge of Natural History, you've anticipated many things I have and agree with my views. As you mentioned, I've faced a lot of criticism and backlash (especially from entomologists—Westwood, Wollaston, and A. Murray have all criticized and mocked me openly), but I don't care about their attacks. Several genuinely knowledgeable people support me, and I notice that those who are somewhat supportive tend to become even more so. Your friend Mr. Wallace has a remarkable philosophical mind, and he has treated me with true integrity and a noble spirit. From your letter, it seems you've tackled some of the toughest questions in Natural History—like the distinctions between various kinds of varieties, representative species, and so on. I hope to find some useful information in your paper on intermediate varieties in intermediate regions, as I've come across very little on that topic. I'm really happy to hear that you've looked into the fascinating issue of equatorial refrigeration. I completely agree that it must have been minor; however, the more I delve into that topic, the more convinced I am that there was some migration from north to south during the Glacial period. The outline in the "Origin" only gives a brief account of my more detailed manuscript on this subject.

I shall be particularly obliged for a copy of your paper when published (118/2. Probably a paper by Bates entitled "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley" ("Trans. Entomol. Soc." Volume V., page 335, 1858-61).); and if any suggestions occur to me (not that you require any) or questions, I will write and ask.

I would really appreciate a copy of your paper when it’s published (118/2. Probably a paper by Bates titled "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley" ("Trans. Entomol. Soc." Volume V., page 335, 1858-61).); and if I think of any suggestions (not that you need any) or questions, I’ll reach out and ask.

I have at once to prepare a new edition of the "Origin," (118/3. Third Edition, March, 1861.), and I will do myself the pleasure of sending you a copy; but it will be only very slightly altered.

I need to prepare a new edition of the "Origin," (118/3. Third Edition, March, 1861.), and I'll happily send you a copy; however, it will only be very slightly changed.

Cases of neuter ants, divided into castes, with intermediate gradations (which I imagine are rare) interest me much. See "Origin" on the driver-ant, page 241 (please look at the passage.)

Cases of neuter ants that are divided into castes, with varying degrees in between (which I assume are uncommon), really interest me. Check "Origin" on the driver ant, page 241 (please refer to that section.)

LETTER 119. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(119/1. This refers to the first number of the new series of the "Natural History Review," 1861, a periodical which Huxley was largely instrumental in founding, and of which he was an editor (see Letter 107). The first series was published in Dublin, and ran to seven volumes between 1854 and 1860. The new series came to an end in 1865.)

(119/1. This refers to the first issue of the new series of the "Natural History Review," 1861, a magazine that Huxley played a key role in establishing, and of which he served as an editor (see Letter 107). The first series was published in Dublin and consisted of seven volumes between 1854 and 1860. The new series ended in 1865.)

Down, January, 3rd {1861}.

Down, January 3, 1861.

I have just finished No. 1 of the "Natural History Review," and must congratulate you, as chiefly concerned, on its excellence. The whole seems to me admirable,—so admirable that it is impossible that other numbers should be so good, but it would be foolish to expect it. I am rather a croaker, and I do rather fear that the merit of the articles will be above the run of common readers and subscribers. I have been much interested by your brain article. (119/2. The "Brain article" of Huxley bore the title "On the Zoological Relations of Man with the Lower Animals," and appeared in No. 1, January 1861, page 67. It was Mr. Huxley's vindication of the unqualified contradiction given by him at the Oxford meeting of the British Association to Professor Owen's assertions as to the difference between the brains of man and the higher apes. The sentence omitted by Owen in his lecture before the University of Cambridge was a footnote on the close structural resemblance between Homo and Pithecus, which occurs in his paper on the characters of the class Mammalia in the "Linn. Soc. Journal," Volume II., 1857, page 20. According to Huxley the lecture, or "Essay on the Classification of the Mammalia," was, with this omission, a reprint of the Linnean paper. In "Man's Place in Nature," page 110, note, Huxley remarks: "Surely it is a little singular that the 'anatomist,' who finds it 'difficult' to 'determine the difference' between Homo and Pithecus, should yet range them, on anatomical grounds, in distinct sub-classes.") What a complete and awful smasher (and done like a "buttered angel") it is for Owen! What a humbug he is to have left out the sentence in the lecture before the orthodox Cambridge dons! I like Lubbock's paper very much: how well he writes. (119/3. Sir John Lubbock's paper was a review of Leydig on the Daphniidae. M'Donnell's was "On the Homologies of the Electric Organ of the Torpedo," afterwards used in the "Origin" (see Edition VI., page 150).) M'Donnell, of course, pleases me greatly. But I am very curious to know who wrote the Protozoa article: I shall hear, if it be not a secret, from Lubbock. It strikes me as very good, and, by Jove, how Owen is shown up—"this great and sound reasoner"! By the way, this reminds me of a passage which I have just observed in Owen's address at Leeds, which a clever reviewer might turn into good fun. He defines (page xc) and further on amplifies his definition that creation means "a process he knows not what." And in a previous sentence he says facts shake his confidence that the Apteryx in New Zealand and Red Grouse in England are "distinct creations." So that he has no confidence that these birds were produced by "processes he knows not what!" To what miserable inconsistencies and rubbish this truckling to opposite opinions leads the great generaliser! (119/4. In the "Historical Sketch," which forms part of the later editions of the "Origin," Mr. Darwin made use of Owen's Leeds Address in the manner sketched above. See "Origin," Edition VI., page xvii.)

I just finished No. 1 of the "Natural History Review," and I have to congratulate you, as you’re mostly responsible, on how excellent it is. Overall, it seems outstanding to me—so outstanding that I can’t imagine future issues being as good, but it would be silly to expect that. I tend to be a bit of a pessimist, and I do worry that the quality of the articles might be too advanced for the average readers and subscribers. I found your brain article really interesting. (119/2. The "Brain article" of Huxley was titled "On the Zoological Relations of Man with the Lower Animals," and it appeared in No. 1, January 1861, page 67. It was Huxley’s rebuttal to Professor Owen’s claims about the differences between human and higher ape brains at the British Association meeting in Oxford. Owen omitted a sentence in his lecture at the University of Cambridge that mentioned the close structural resemblance between Homo and Pithecus, which is found in his paper on Mammalia in the "Linn. Soc. Journal," Volume II., 1857, page 20. According to Huxley, the lecture, or "Essay on the Classification of the Mammalia," was simply a reprint of the Linnean paper with this omission. In "Man's Place in Nature," page 110, note, Huxley remarks: "Surely it is a bit odd that the 'anatomist,' who finds it 'difficult' to 'determine the difference' between Homo and Pithecus, should nonetheless classify them, on anatomical grounds, into distinct sub-classes.") What a total and embarrassing blow this is for Owen! It’s ridiculous that he left out that sentence in front of those traditional Cambridge scholars! I really like Lubbock's paper: he writes so well. (119/3. Sir John Lubbock's paper was a review of Leydig on the Daphniidae. M'Donnell's was "On the Homologies of the Electric Organ of the Torpedo," which was later referenced in the "Origin" (see Edition VI., page 150).) M'Donnell, of course, really impresses me. But I'm very curious about who wrote the Protozoa article: I hope to find out from Lubbock, unless it’s a secret. I think it’s very well done, and wow, how Owen gets exposed—"this great and logical thinker"! Speaking of which, I just noticed something in Owen's address at Leeds that a clever reviewer could turn into a good joke. He defines (page xc) and later expands on his definition that creation means "a process he knows not what." In a previous sentence, he claims facts make him doubt that the Apteryx in New Zealand and the Red Grouse in England are "distinct creations." So, he has no confidence that these birds came about through "processes he knows not what!" Look at the miserable inconsistencies and nonsense this bending to opposing views leads this great generalizer to! (119/4. In the "Historical Sketch," which is part of the later editions of the "Origin," Mr. Darwin used Owen's Leeds Address in the way I described above. See "Origin," Edition VI., page xvii.)

Farewell: I heartily rejoice in the clear merit of this number. I hope Mrs. Huxley goes on well. Etty keeps much the same, but has not got up to the same pitch as when you were here. Farewell.

Farewell: I'm really glad about the clear quality of this issue. I hope Mrs. Huxley is doing well. Etty is about the same, but hasn’t recovered to the level she was at when you visited. Goodbye.

LETTER 120. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, February 25th {1861}.

I am extremely much obliged for your very kind present of your beautiful work, "Seasons with the Sea-Horses;" and I have no doubt that I shall find much interesting from so careful and acute an observer as yourself. (120/1. "Seasons with the Sea-Horses; or, Sporting Adventures in the Northern Seas." London, 1861. Mr. Lamont (loc. cit., page 273) writes: "The polar bear seems to me to be nothing more than a variety of the bears inhabiting Northern Europe, Asia, and America; and it surely requires no very great stretch of the imagination to suppose that this variety was originally created, not as we see him now, but by individuals of Ursus arctos in Siberia, who, finding their means of subsistence running short, and pressed by hunger, ventured on the ice and caught some seals. These individuals would find that they could make a subsistence in this way, and would take up their residence on the shore and gradually take to a life on the ice...Then it stands to reason that those individuals who might happen to be palest in colour would have the best chance of succeeding in surprising seals...The process of Natural Selection would do the rest, and Ursus arctos would in the course of a few thousands, or a few millions of years, be transformed into the variety at present known as Ursus maritimus." The author adds the following footnote (op. cit., page 275): "It will be obvious to any one that I follow Mr. Darwin in these remarks; and, although the substance of this chapter was written in Spitzbergen, before "The Origin of Species" was published, I do not claim any originality for my views; and I also cheerfully acknowledge that, but for the publication of that work in connection with the name of so distinguished a naturalist, I never would have ventured to give to the world my own humble opinions on the subject.")

I’m really grateful for your thoughtful gift of your wonderful book, "Seasons with the Sea-Horses;" and I’m sure I’ll find it very interesting coming from such a careful and insightful observer like you. (120/1. "Seasons with the Sea-Horses; or, Sporting Adventures in the Northern Seas." London, 1861. Mr. Lamont (loc. cit., page 273) writes: "The polar bear seems to me to be nothing more than a variety of the bears living in Northern Europe, Asia, and America; and it doesn’t take much imagination to suggest that this variety was originally created, not as we see it now, but by individuals of Ursus arctos in Siberia, who, finding their food supply dwindling, and driven by hunger, ventured onto the ice and caught some seals. These bears would discover that they could survive this way, settle along the shore, and gradually adapt to a life on the ice... Therefore, it stands to reason that the individuals who happened to be lighter in color would have the best chance of successfully sneaking up on seals... The process of Natural Selection would take care of the rest, and Ursus arctos would, over the course of thousands or millions of years, transform into what we now know as Ursus maritimus." The author adds the following footnote (op. cit., page 275): "It will be obvious to anyone that I follow Mr. Darwin in these comments; and while the essence of this chapter was written in Spitzbergen, before 'The Origin of Species' was published, I don't claim any originality for my views; and I also gladly acknowledge that, if it weren't for the publication of that work associated with such a distinguished naturalist, I would never have felt confident enough to share my own modest opinions on the topic.")

P.S. I have just been cutting the leaves of your book, and have been very much pleased and surprised at your note about what you wrote in Spitzbergen. As you thought it out independently, it is no wonder that you so clearly understand Natural Selection, which so few of my reviewers do or pretend not to do.

P.S. I just finished cutting the leaves of your book, and I was really pleased and surprised by your note about what you wrote in Spitzbergen. Since you figured it out on your own, it makes sense that you understand Natural Selection so clearly, something that very few of my reviewers either grasp or pretend to grasp.

I never expected to see any one so heroically bold as to defend my bear illustration. (120/2. "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water."—"Origin," Edition VI., page 141. See Letter 110.) But a man who has done all that you have done must be bold! It is laughable how often I have been attacked and misrepresented about this bear. I am much pleased with your remarks, and thank you cordially for coming to the rescue.

I never thought I’d meet anyone so courageously bold as to defend my bear illustration. (120/2. "In North America, Hearne observed a black bear swimming for hours with its mouth wide open, catching insects in the water almost like a whale."—"Origin," Edition VI., page 141. See Letter 110.) But someone who has accomplished everything you have must be bold! It’s funny how often I’ve been criticized and misrepresented regarding this bear. I really appreciate your comments, and I sincerely thank you for stepping in to help.

LETTER 121. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER.

(121/1. Mr. Darwin's letters to Mr. Tegetmeier, taken as a whole, give a striking picture of the amount of assistance which Darwin received from him during many years. Some citations from these letters given in "Life and Letters," II., pages 52, 53, show how freely and generously Mr. Tegetmeier gave his help, and how much his co-operation was valued.

(121/1. Mr. Darwin's letters to Mr. Tegetmeier provide a compelling overview of the significant support Darwin received from him over the years. Some excerpts from these letters, found in "Life and Letters," II., pages 52, 53, illustrate how openly and generously Mr. Tegetmeier offered his assistance and how much his collaboration was appreciated.

The following letter is given as an example of the questions on which Darwin sought Mr. Tegetmeier's opinion and guidance.)

The following letter is provided as an example of the questions on which Darwin asked for Mr. Tegetmeier's opinion and guidance.

Down, March 22 {1861}.

Down, March 22, 1861.

I ought to have answered your last note sooner; but I have been very busy. How wonderfully successful you have been in breeding Pouters! You have a good right to be proud of your accuracy of eye and judgment. I am in the thick of poultry, having just commenced, and shall be truly grateful for the skulls, if you can send them by any conveyance to the Nag's Head next Thursday.

I should have replied to your last note sooner, but I’ve been really busy. It’s amazing how successful you’ve been at breeding Pouters! You have every reason to be proud of your eye for detail and judgment. I’m really getting into poultry myself, having just started, and I would really appreciate the skulls if you can send them by any means to the Nag's Head next Thursday.

You ask about vermilion wax: positively it was not in the state of comb, but in solid bits and cakes, which were thrown with other rubbish not far from my hives. You can make any use of the fact you like. Combs could be concentrically and variously coloured and dates recorded by giving for a few days wax darkly coloured with vermilion and indigo, and I daresay other substances. You ask about my crossed fowls, and this leads me to make a proposition to you, which I hope cannot be offensive to you. I trust you know me too well to think that I would propose anything objectionable to the best of my judgment. The case is this: for my object of treating poultry I must give a sketch of several breeds, with remarks on various points. I do not feel strong on the subject. Now, when my MS. is fairly copied in an excellent handwriting, would you read it over, which would take you at most an hour or two, and make comments in pencil on it; and accept, like a barrister, a fee, we will say, of a couple of guineas. This would be a great assistance to me, specially if you would allow me to put a note, stating that you, a distinguished judge and fancier, had read it over. I would state that you doubted or concurred, as each case might be, of course striking out what you were sure was incorrect. There would be little new in my MS. to you; but if by chance you used any of my facts or conclusions before I published, I should wish you to state that they were on my authority; otherwise I shall be accused of stealing from you. There will be little new, except that perhaps I have consulted some out-of-the-way books, and have corresponded with some good authorities. Tell me frankly what you think of this; but unless you will oblige me by accepting remuneration, I cannot and will not give you such trouble. I have little doubt that several points will arise which will require investigation, as I care for many points disregarded by fanciers; and according to any time thus spent, you will, I trust, allow me to make remuneration. I hope that you will grant me this favour. There is one assistance which I will now venture to beg of you—viz., to get me, if you can, another specimen of an old white Angora rabbit. I want it dead for the skeleton; and not knocked on the head. Secondly, I see in the "Cottage Gardener" (March 19th, page 375) there are impure half-lops with one ear quite upright and shorter than the other lopped ear. I much want a dead one. Baker cannot get one. Baily is looking out; but I want two specimens. Can you assist me, if you meet any rabbit-fancier? I have had rabbits with one ear more lopped than the other; but I want one with one ear quite upright and shorter, and the other quite long and lopped.

You ask about vermilion wax: it definitely wasn’t in the form of comb, but rather in solid pieces and cakes, which were discarded with other debris not far from my hives. You can take from this what you like. Combs could be colored in concentric and various ways, and dates could be noted by using wax that’s darkly colored with vermilion and indigo, and I assume other substances too. You inquire about my crossbred chickens, which brings me to suggest something to you that I hope won’t offend you. I trust you know me well enough to believe that I wouldn’t propose anything inappropriate to the best of my judgment. The situation is this: for my purpose of discussing poultry, I need to provide a brief overview of several breeds, along with comments on various points. I don’t feel very confident on this topic. Now, once my manuscript is neatly copied in excellent handwriting, would you be willing to read it over? It should only take you an hour or two, and make comments in pencil on it; and accept, like a lawyer, a fee—let’s say a couple of guineas. This would be a huge help to me, especially if you would allow me to mention that you, a distinguished judge and breeder, have read it over. I would indicate whether you had doubts or agreed, as the case might be, of course omitting anything you were sure was incorrect. There wouldn’t be much new in my manuscript for you; but if by chance you used any of my facts or conclusions before I published, I would need you to specify that they were based on my work; otherwise, I’ll be accused of taking credit from you. There will be little new, except that maybe I have consulted some obscure books and corresponded with respected authorities. Please tell me openly what you think about this; however, unless you agree to accept payment, I can’t and won’t ask you for such trouble. I have no doubt that several issues will come up that will need investigation, as I’m interested in many aspects that breeders ignore; and depending on the time you spend, you’ll, I hope, allow me to provide compensation. I hope that you will grant me this favor. There is one more thing I’d like to ask of you: if possible, could you find me another specimen of an old white Angora rabbit? I need it dead for the skeleton, not just knocked on the head. Secondly, I saw in the "Cottage Gardener" (March 19th, page 375) that there are impure half-lops with one ear completely upright and shorter than the other lopped ear. I really need a dead one. Baker can’t find one. Baily is looking out for it, but I need two specimens. Can you help me if you come across any rabbit breeder? I’ve had rabbits with one ear more lopped than the other, but I’m looking for one with one ear fully upright and shorter, and the other one long and lopped.

LETTER 122. TO H.W. BATES. Down, March 26th {1861}.

I have read your papers with extreme interest, and I have carefully read every word of them. (122/1. "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley." (Read March 5th and November 24th, 1860). "Entomological Soc. Trans." V., pages 223 and 335).) They seem to me to be far richer in facts of variation, and especially on the distribution of varieties and subspecies, than anything which I have read. Hereafter I shall re-read them, and hope in my future work to profit by them and make use of them. The amount of variation has much surprised me. The analogous variation of distinct species in the same regions strikes me as particularly curious. The greater variability of the female sex is new to me. Your Guiana case seems in some degree analogous, as far as plants are concerned, with the modern plains of La Plata, which seem to have been colonised from the north, but the species have been hardly modified. (122/2. Mr. Bates (page 349) gives reason to believe that the Guiana region should be considered "a perfectly independent province," and that it has formed a centre "whence radiated the species which now people the low lands on its borders.")

I read your papers with great interest and carefully went through every word. (122/1. "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley." (Read March 5th and November 24th, 1860). "Entomological Soc. Trans." V., pages 223 and 335).) I find them to be significantly richer in facts about variation, especially regarding the distribution of varieties and subspecies, than anything else I have encountered. Moving forward, I plan to reread them and hope to benefit from them in my future work. The extent of variation has surprised me. The similar variations among different species in the same areas seem particularly intriguing. The greater variability of females is something new to me. Your case from Guiana appears somewhat similar to the modern plains of La Plata, which seem to have been colonized from the north, yet the species have hardly changed. (122/2. Mr. Bates (page 349) suggests that the Guiana region should be seen as "a perfectly independent province," and that it has served as a center "from which the species that now inhabit the lowlands on its borders radiated.")

Would you kindly answer me two or three questions if in your power? When species A becomes modified in another region into a well-marked form C, but is connected with it by one (or more) gradational forms B inhabiting an intermediate region; does this form B generally exist in equal numbers with A and C, OR INHABIT AN EQUALLY LARGE AREA? The probability is that you cannot answer this question, though one of your cases seems to bear on it...

Would you please answer me two or three questions if you can? When species A changes in another area into a clearly distinct form C, but is connected to it by one (or more) gradual forms B living in an intermediate area; does form B usually exist in equal numbers with A and C, or occupy a similarly large area? It's likely that you can't answer this question, but one of your cases seems relevant to it...

You will, I think, be glad to hear that I now often hear of naturalists accepting my views more or less fully; but some are curiously cautious in running the risk of any small odium in expressing their belief.

You’ll be glad to know that I now often hear about naturalists who accept my views to some extent; however, some are strangely hesitant to risk any minor backlash for expressing their beliefs.

LETTER 123. TO H.W. BATES. Down, April 4th {1861}.

I have been unwell, so have delayed thanking you for your admirable letter. I hope you will not think me presumptuous in saying how much I have been struck with your varied knowledge, and with the decisive manner in which you bring it to bear on each point,—a rare and most high quality, as far as my experience goes. I earnestly hope you will find time to publish largely: before the Linnean Society you might bring boldly out your views on species. Have you ever thought of publishing your travels, and working in them the less abstruse parts of your Natural History? I believe it would sell, and be a very valuable contribution to Natural History. You must also have seen a good deal of the natives. I know well it would be quite unreasonable to ask for any further information from you; but I will just mention that I am now, and shall be for a long time, writing on domestic varieties of all animals. Any facts would be useful, especially any showing that savages take any care in breeding their animals, or in rejecting the bad and preserving the good; or any fancies which they may have that one coloured or marked dog, etc., is better than another. I have already collected much on this head, but am greedy for facts. You will at once see their bearing on variation under domestication.

I haven’t been feeling well, so I’ve put off thanking you for your excellent letter. I hope you won’t think I’m being overly bold when I say how impressed I am with your broad knowledge and the confident way you apply it to each topic—something quite rare, at least in my experience. I truly hope you find the time to publish extensively: you could confidently present your ideas on species before the Linnean Society. Have you ever considered publishing your travels and incorporating the more accessible parts of your Natural History? I believe it would be popular and a significant contribution to the field. You must have also observed quite a bit about the locals. I know it might be unreasonable to ask for more information from you, but I just want to mention that I’m currently writing about domestic varieties of all animals and will be for a long time. Any information would be helpful, especially anything that shows whether indigenous people take care in breeding their animals or make decisions to keep the good ones and discard the bad, or any beliefs they may hold that a particular colored or marked dog, etc., is preferable to another. I’ve already gathered a lot on this topic, but I’m eager for more facts. You’ll immediately see how they relate to variation under domestication.

Hardly anything in your letter has pleased me more than about sexual selection. In my larger MS. (and indeed in the "Origin" with respect to the tuft of hairs on the breast of the cock-turkey) I have guarded myself against going too far; but I did not at all know that male and female butterflies haunted rather different sites. If I had to cut up myself in a review I would have {worried?} and quizzed sexual selection; therefore, though I am fully convinced that it is largely true, you may imagine how pleased I am at what you say on your belief. This part of your letter to me is a quintessence of richness. The fact about butterflies attracted by coloured sepals is another good fact, worth its weight in gold. It would have delighted the heart of old Christian C. Sprengel—now many years in his grave.

Hardly anything in your letter has thrilled me more than what you said about sexual selection. In my longer manuscript (and even in the "Origin," concerning the tuft of hairs on the chest of the male turkey), I've made sure not to overstate things; but I had no idea that male and female butterflies prefer different locations. If I were to critique myself in a review, I would have questioned sexual selection. So, even though I'm fully convinced that it's mostly true, you can imagine how happy I am about your thoughts on it. That part of your letter is a true gem. The fact about butterflies being attracted to colored sepals is another excellent detail, worth its weight in gold. It would have made old Christian C. Sprengel, who has been long gone, very happy.

I am glad to hear that you have specially attended to "mimetic" analogies—a most curious subject; I hope you publish on it. I have for a long time wished to know whether what Dr. Collingwood asserts is true—that the most striking cases generally occur between insects inhabiting the same country.

I’m glad to hear you’ve focused on “mimetic” analogies—a really fascinating topic; I hope you publish your findings. I’ve wanted to know for a while if what Dr. Collingwood claims is true—that the most notable examples usually happen between insects living in the same country.

LETTER 124. TO F.W. HUTTON. Down, April 20th {1861}.

I hope that you will permit me to thank you for sending me a copy of your paper in "The Geologist" (124/1. In a letter to Hooker (April 23rd?, 1861) Darwin refers to Hutton's review as "very original," and adds that Hutton is "one of the very few who see that the change of species cannot be directly proved..." ("Life and Letters," II., page 362). The review appeared in "The Geologist" (afterwards known as "The Geological Magazine") for 1861, pages 132-6 and 183-8. A letter on "Difficulties of Darwinism" is published in the same volume of "The Geologist," page 286.), and at the same time to express my opinion that you have done the subject a real service by the highly original, striking, and condensed manner with which you have put the case. I am actually weary of telling people that I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another, but that I believe that this view in the main is correct, because so many phenomena can be thus grouped together and explained. But it is generally of no use; I cannot make persons see this. I generally throw in their teeth the universally admitted theory of the undulation of light,—neither the undulation nor the very existence of ether being proved, yet admitted because the view explains so much. You are one of the very few who have seen this, and have now put it most forcibly and clearly. I am much pleased to see how carefully you have read my book, and, what is far more important, reflected on so many points with an independent spirit. As I am deeply interested in the subject (and I hope not exclusively under a personal point of view) I could not resist venturing to thank you for the right good service which you have done.

I hope you’ll allow me to thank you for sending me a copy of your paper in "The Geologist" (124/1. In a letter to Hooker (April 23rd?, 1861), Darwin mentions Hutton's review as "very original," and adds that Hutton is "one of the very few who see that the change of species cannot be directly proved..." ("Life and Letters," II., page 362). The review was published in "The Geologist" (later known as "The Geological Magazine") for 1861, pages 132-6 and 183-8. A letter on "Difficulties of Darwinism" also appears in the same volume of "The Geologist," page 286.), and I also want to say that you've done a real service to the topic with the highly original, striking, and concise way you've presented your case. I'm honestly tired of telling people that I don't claim to provide direct evidence of one species transforming into another, but I believe this idea is mostly correct because so many phenomena can be grouped together and explained this way. Unfortunately, it’s usually pointless; I can’t make people understand this. I often use the universally accepted theory of light waves as an example—neither the waves nor the existence of ether being proven, yet it’s accepted because it explains so much. You are one of the very few who have grasped this and have expressed it so compellingly and clearly. I'm very pleased to see how carefully you’ve read my book and, more importantly, how thoughtfully you've engaged with so many points independently. Since I’m deeply interested in this subject (and I hope not exclusively from a personal perspective), I couldn't help but thank you for the excellent service you've provided.

I need hardly say that this note requires no answer.

I barely need to mention that this note doesn't need a response.

LETTER 125. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(125/1. Parts of this letter are published in "Life and Letters," II., page 362.)

Down, {April} 23rd, {1861}.

Down, April 23, 1861.

I have been much interested by Bentham's paper in the "Natural History Review," but it would not, of course, from familiarity, strike you as it did me. (125/2. This refers to Bentham's paper "On the Species and Genera of Plants, etc." "Nat. Hist. Review," April, 1861, page 133, which is founded on, or extracted from, a paper read before the Linn. Soc., November 15th, 1858. It had been originally set down to be read on July 1st, 1858, but gave way to the papers of Darwin and Wallace. Mr. Bentham has described ("Life and Letters," II., page 294) how he reluctantly cancelled the parts urging "original fixity" of specific type, and the remainder seems not to have been published except in the above-quoted paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review.") I liked the whole—all the facts on the nature of close and varying species. Good Heavens! to think of the British botanists turning up their noses and saying that he knows nothing of British plants! I was also pleased at his remarks on classification, because it showed me that I wrote truly on this subject in the "Origin." I saw Bentham at the Linnean Society, and had some talk with him and Lubbock and Edgeworth, Wallich, and several others. I asked Bentham to give us his ideas of species; whether partially with us or dead against us, he would write excellent matter. He made no answer, but his manner made me think he might do so if urged—so do you attack him. Every one was speaking with affection and anxiety of Henslow. I dined with Bell at the Linnean Club, and liked my dinner...dining-out is such a novelty to me that I enjoyed it. Bell has a real good heart. I liked Rolleston's paper, but I never read anything so obscure and not self-evident as his "canons." (125/3. See "Nat. Hist. Review," 1861, page 206. The paper is "On the Brain of the Orang Utang," and forms part of the bitter controversy of this period to which reference occurs in letters to Huxley and elsewhere in these volumes. Rolleston's work is quoted by Huxley ("Man's Place in Nature," page 117) as part of the crushing refutation of Owen's position. Mr. Huxley's letter referred to above is no doubt that in the "Athenaeum," April 13th, 1861, page 498; it is certainly severe, but to those who know Mr. Huxley's "Succinct History of the Controversy," etc. ("Man's Place in Nature," page 113), it will not seem too severe.) I had a dim perception of the truth of your profound remark—that he wrote in fear and trembling "of God, man, and monkeys," but I would alter it into "God, man, Owen, and monkeys." Huxley's letter was truculent, and I see that every one thinks it too truculent; but in simple truth I am become quite demoniacal about Owen—worse than Huxley; and I told Huxley that I should put myself under his care to be rendered milder. But I mean to try and get more angelic in my feelings; yet I never shall forget his cordial shake of the hand, when he was writing as spitefully as he possibly could against me. But I have always thought that you have more cause than I to be demoniacally inclined towards him. Bell told me that Owen says that the editor mutilated his article in the "Edinburgh Review" (125/4. This is the only instance, with which we are acquainted, of Owen's acknowledging the authorship of the "Edinburgh Review" article.), and Bell seemed to think it was rendered more spiteful by the Editor; perhaps the opposite view is as probable. Oh, dear! this does not look like becoming more angelic in my temper!

I have found Bentham's paper in the "Natural History Review" quite fascinating, but it probably wouldn't stand out to you as it did to me. (125/2. This refers to Bentham's paper "On the Species and Genera of Plants, etc." "Nat. Hist. Review," April, 1861, page 133, which is based on a paper presented at the Linn. Soc., November 15th, 1858. It was originally planned to be read on July 1st, 1858, but was postponed in favor of the presentations by Darwin and Wallace. Mr. Bentham mentioned in "Life and Letters," II., page 294, how he reluctantly removed sections advocating "original fixity" of specific types, and the remaining content doesn't seem to have been published apart from the quoted paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review.") I appreciated the entire discussion—especially the facts about closely related and varying species. It's surprising to think that British botanists dismiss him, claiming he knows nothing about British plants! I also liked his comments on classification; they confirmed that I was accurate on this topic in the "Origin." I ran into Bentham at the Linnean Society and had some conversations with him, Lubbock, Edgeworth, Wallich, and others. I asked Bentham to share his thoughts on species; whether he agreed with us or completely disagreed, I knew he'd provide valuable insights. He didn't respond, but his demeanor suggested he might share if pressed, so feel free to challenge him. Everyone was discussing Henslow with both affection and concern. I had dinner with Bell at the Linnean Club and really enjoyed it... dining out is such a new experience for me that it was great. Bell has a genuinely kind heart. I found Rolleston's paper interesting, but I never read anything as confusing and unclear as his "canons." (125/3. See "Nat. Hist. Review," 1861, page 206. The paper is "On the Brain of the Orang Utang," and is part of the heated controversy of this time referenced in letters to Huxley and elsewhere in these volumes. Rolleston's work is quoted by Huxley ("Man's Place in Nature," page 117) as part of the strong rebuttal of Owen's position. Mr. Huxley's letter mentioned above is likely the one in the "Athenaeum," April 13th, 1861, page 498; it is certainly harsh, but for those who are familiar with Mr. Huxley's "Succinct History of the Controversy," etc. ("Man's Place in Nature," page 113), it won't seem overly harsh.) I sensed the truth in your insightful comment that he wrote in fear and trembling "of God, man, and monkeys," but I would modify it to "God, man, Owen, and monkeys." Huxley's letter was aggressive, and it seems everyone thinks it was too harsh; but honestly, I've become pretty angry about Owen—worse than Huxley; I told Huxley I would rely on him to help mellow my attitude. But I plan to try to be more kind in my feelings; still, I won’t forget his friendly handshake when he was writing the most spiteful things he could against me. But I’ve always believed you have even more reason than I do to feel so negatively toward him. Bell mentioned that Owen claims the editor edited his article in the "Edinburgh Review" (125/4. This is the only instance we know of where Owen acknowledged writing the "Edinburgh Review" article.), and Bell seemed to think it was made harsher by the editor; maybe the opposite is also likely. Oh dear! This doesn't seem like I'm getting any better in my mood!

I had a splendid long talk with Lyell (you may guess how splendid, for he was many times on his knees, with elbows on the sofa) (125/5. Mr. Darwin often spoke of Sir Charles Lyell's tendency to take curious attitudes when excited.) on his work in France: he seems to have done capital work in making out the age of the celt-bearing beds, but the case gets more and more complicated. All, however, tends to greater and greater antiquity of man. The shingle beds seem to be estuary deposits. I called on R. Chambers at his very nice house in St. John's Wood, and had a very pleasant half-hour's talk—he is really a capital fellow. He made one good remark and chuckled over it: that the laymen universally had treated the controversy on the "Essays and Reviews" as a merely professional subject, and had not joined in it but had left it to the clergy. I shall be anxious for your next letter about Henslow. Farewell, with sincere sympathy, my old friend.

I had a great long talk with Lyell (you can imagine how great, since he was often on his knees, with his elbows on the sofa) (125/5. Mr. Darwin often mentioned Sir Charles Lyell's habit of taking interesting positions when he was excited.) about his work in France: he seems to have done excellent work figuring out the age of the celt-bearing beds, but the situation keeps getting more and more complicated. Still, everything points to an increasingly ancient history of humanity. The shingle beds appear to be estuary deposits. I visited R. Chambers at his lovely house in St. John's Wood and had a very nice half-hour conversation—he's really a great guy. He made one insightful comment and laughed about it: that ordinary people generally treated the controversy surrounding the "Essays and Reviews" as just a professional issue, not getting involved but leaving it to the clergy. I’m looking forward to your next letter about Henslow. Goodbye, with heartfelt sympathy, my old friend.

P.S.—We are very much obliged for "London Review." We like reading much of it, and the science is incomparably better than in the "Athenaeum." You shall not go on very long sending it, as you will be ruined by pennies and trouble; but I am under a horrid spell to the "Athenaeum" and "Gardeners' Chronicle," both of which are intolerably dull, but I have taken them in for so many years that I cannot give them up. The "Cottage Gardener," for my purpose, is now far better than the "Gardeners' Chronicle."

P.S.—We really appreciate the "London Review." We enjoy reading a lot of it, and the science is way better than in the "Athenaeum." You won’t have to keep sending it for long, since it’ll cost you a fortune and add to your troubles; but I’m stuck in a terrible cycle with the "Athenaeum" and "Gardeners' Chronicle," both of which are incredibly boring, yet I’ve subscribed to them for so many years that I can’t let them go. The "Cottage Gardener" is much better for my needs than the "Gardeners' Chronicle" now.

LETTER 126. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, April 25 {1861}.

I received this morning your "Unite de l'Espece Humaine" {published in 1861}, and most sincerely do I thank you for this your very kind present. I had heard of and been recommended to read your articles, but, not knowing that they were separately published, did not know how to get them. So your present is most acceptable, and I am very anxious to see your views on the whole subject of species and variation; and I am certain to derive much benefit from your work. In cutting the pages I observe that you have most kindly mentioned my work several times. My views spread slowly in England and America; and I am much surprised to find them most commonly accepted by geologists, next by botanists, and least by zoologists. I am much pleased that the younger and middle-aged geologists are coming round, for the arguments from Geology have always seemed strongest against me. Not one of the older geologists (except Lyell) has been even shaken in his views of the eternal immutability of species. But so many of the younger men are turning round with zeal that I look to the future with some confidence. I am now at work on "Variation under Domestication," but make slow progress—it is such tedious work comparing skeletons.

I received your "Unite de l'Espece Humaine" {published in 1861} this morning, and I sincerely thank you for this very kind gift. I had heard about your articles and had been recommended to read them, but since I didn't know they were published separately, I didn't know how to get them. So your gift is very welcome, and I'm eager to see your thoughts on the entire topic of species and variation; I’m sure I’ll gain a lot from your work. While cutting the pages, I noticed that you’ve generously mentioned my work several times. My ideas are spreading slowly in England and America, and I'm quite surprised to see them mostly accepted by geologists, somewhat by botanists, and least by zoologists. I'm pleased to see that younger and middle-aged geologists are starting to come around, since the arguments from geology have always seemed strongest against me. Not one of the older geologists (except for Lyell) has even wavered in their belief in the eternal immutability of species. But so many younger people are changing their views with enthusiasm that I look to the future with some confidence. I'm currently working on "Variation under Domestication," but progress is slow—it's such tedious work comparing skeletons.

With very sincere thanks for the kind sympathy which you have always shown me, and with much respect,...

With heartfelt thanks for the kindness and support you’ve always shown me, and with great respect,...

P.S.—I have lately read M. Naudin's paper (126/1. Naudin's paper ("Revue Horticole," 1852) is mentioned in the "Historical Sketch" prefixed to the later editions of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page xix). Naudin insisted that species are formed in a manner analogous to the production of varieties by cultivators, i.e., by selection, "but he does not show how selection acts under nature." In the "Life and Letters," II., page 246, Darwin, speaking of Naudin's work, says: "Decaisne seems to think he gives my whole theory."), but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not show how selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer (126/2. The obscure writer is Patrick Matthew (see the "Historical Sketch" in the "Origin.") on forest trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly and clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so briefly that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book.

P.S.—I recently read M. Naudin's paper (126/1. Naudin's paper ("Revue Horticole," 1852) is mentioned in the "Historical Sketch" prefixed to the later editions of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page xix). Naudin argued that species are formed in a way similar to how cultivators produce varieties, meaning through selection, "but he does not explain how selection works in nature." In "Life and Letters," II., page 246, Darwin notes Naudin's work, saying: "Decaisne seems to think he represents my whole theory."), but it doesn’t seem to me to predict my ideas, as he doesn’t demonstrate how selection could work in nature; however, a lesser-known writer (126/2. The lesser-known writer is Patrick Matthew (see the "Historical Sketch" in the "Origin.") who wrote about forest trees in 1830 in Scotland, clearly and explicitly anticipated my views—although he put the argument so briefly that no one ever recognized the scattered references in his book.

LETTER 127. TO L. HINDMARSH.

(127/1. The following letter was in reply to one from Mr. Hindmarsh, to whom Mr. Darwin had written asking for information on the average number of animals killed each year in the Chillingham herd. The object of the request was to obtain information which might throw light on the rate of increase of the cattle relatively to those on the pampas of South America. Mr. Hindmarsh had contributed a paper "On the Wild Cattle of Chillingham Park" to the "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume II., page 274, 1839.)

(127/1. The following letter was a response to one from Mr. Hindmarsh, who Mr. Darwin had written to asking for details on the average number of animals killed each year in the Chillingham herd. The purpose of the request was to gather information that could provide insight into the population growth of these cattle compared to those on the pampas of South America. Mr. Hindmarsh had submitted a paper titled "On the Wild Cattle of Chillingham Park" to the "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume II., page 274, 1839.)

Down, May 12th {1861}.

Down, May 12, 1861.

I thank you sincerely for your prompt and great kindness, and return the letter, which I have been very glad to see and have had copied. The increase is more rapid than I anticipated, but it seems rather conjectural; I had hoped that in so interesting a case some exact record had been kept. The number of births, or of calves reared till they followed their mothers, would perhaps have been the best datum. From Mr. Hardy's letter I infer that ten must be annually born to make up the deaths from various causes. In Paraguay, Azara states that in a herd of 4,000, from 1,000 to 1,300 are reared; but then, though they do not kill calves, but castrate the young bulls, no doubt the oxen would be killed earlier than the cows, so that the herd would contain probably more of the female sex than the herd at Chillingham. There is not apparently any record whether more young bulls are killed than cows. I am surprised that Lord Tankerville does not have an exact record kept of deaths and sexes and births: after a dozen years it would be an interesting statistical record to the naturalist and agriculturist.

I sincerely appreciate your quick and generous kindness, and I’m returning the letter, which I was very pleased to see and have had copied. The increase is happening faster than I expected, but it seems a bit uncertain; I had hoped that in such an interesting situation, some accurate records had been maintained. The number of births, or calves raised until they followed their mothers, would probably be the best data. From Mr. Hardy's letter, I gather that to offset the deaths from various causes, around ten must be born each year. In Paraguay, Azara mentions that in a herd of 4,000, between 1,000 and 1,300 are raised; however, since they don't kill calves but castrate the young bulls, it's likely that the oxen would be slaughtered earlier than the cows, resulting in probably more females in the herd than in the herd at Chillingham. There doesn’t seem to be any record of whether more young bulls are killed than cows. I’m surprised that Lord Tankerville doesn’t keep exact records of deaths, sexes, and births; after a dozen years, it would be an interesting statistical record for naturalists and farmers.

(PLATE: PROFESSOR HENSLOW.) LETTER 128. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(128/1. The death of Professor Henslow (who was Sir J.D. Hooker's father-in-law) occurred on May 16th, 1861.)

(128/1. Professor Henslow, who was Sir J.D. Hooker's father-in-law, passed away on May 16th, 1861.)

Down, May 24th {1861}.

Down, May 24, 1861.

Thanks for your two notes. I am glad that the burial is over, and sincerely sympathise and can most fully understand your feelings at your loss.

Thanks for your two messages. I'm glad the funeral is over, and I truly empathize and completely understand how you feel about your loss.

I grieve to think how little I saw of Henslow for many years. With respect to a biography of Henslow, I cannot help feeling rather doubtful, on the principle that a biography could not do him justice. His letters were generally written in a hurry, and I fear he did not keep any journal or diary. If there were any vivid materials to describe his life as parish priest, and manner of managing the poor, it would be very good.

I’m sad to think how little I saw of Henslow for so many years. When it comes to a biography of Henslow, I can’t help but feel uncertain, because I don’t think a biography could truly capture him. His letters were usually written quickly, and I’m afraid he didn’t keep any journal or diary. If there were any detailed accounts to describe his life as a parish priest and how he managed the poor, that would be excellent.

I am never very sanguine on literary projects. I cannot help fearing his Life might turn out flat. There can hardly be marked incidents to describe. I sincerely hope that I take a wrong and gloomy view, but I cannot help fearing—I would rather see no Life than one that would interest very few. It will be a pleasure and duty in me to consider what I can recollect; but at present I can think of scarcely anything. The equability and perfection of Henslow's whole character, I should think, would make it very difficult for any one to pourtray him. I have been thinking about Henslow all day a good deal, but the more I think the less I can think of to write down. It is quite a new style for me to set about, but I will continue to think what I could say to give any, however imperfect, notion of him in the old Cambridge days.

I’m never really optimistic about literary projects. I can’t help but worry that his Life might turn out boring. There likely won't be many notable incidents to describe. I genuinely hope I’m wrong and being too negative, but I can’t shake the feeling—I’d rather not write a Life than one that would hardly interest anyone. It will be both a pleasure and a responsibility for me to think about what I can remember; but right now, I can hardly think of anything. I believe that the stability and perfection of Henslow's entire character would make it very difficult for anyone to portray him. I’ve been thinking about Henslow a lot today, but the more I think, the less I can come up with to write down. This is a completely new approach for me, but I will keep pondering what I could say to provide any, even if imperfect, idea of him from the old Cambridge days.

Pray give my kindest remembrances to L. Jenyns (128/2. The Rev. Leonard Jenyns (afterwards Blomefield) undertook the "Life" of Henslow, to which Darwin contributed a characteristic and delightful sketch. See Letter 17.), who is often associated with my recollection of those old happy days.

Pray give my kindest regards to L. Jenyns (128/2. The Rev. Leonard Jenyns (later Blomefield) took on the "Life" of Henslow, to which Darwin contributed a distinctive and charming sketch. See Letter 17.), who often comes to mind when I think of those old happy days.

LETTER 129. HENRY FAWCETT TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(129/1. It was in reply to the following letter that Darwin wrote to Fawcett: "You could not possibly have told me anything which would have given me more satisfaction than what you say about Mr. Mill's opinion. Until your review appeared I began to think that perhaps I did not understand at all how to reason scientifically." ("Life of Henry Fawcett," by Leslie Stephen, 1885, page 100.)

(129/1. It was in response to the following letter that Darwin wrote to Fawcett: "You couldn’t have told me anything that would have given me more satisfaction than what you said about Mr. Mill’s opinion. Until your review came out, I started to think that maybe I didn’t understand how to reason scientifically at all." ("Life of Henry Fawcett," by Leslie Stephen, 1885, page 100.)

Bodenham, Salisbury, July 16th {1861}.

Bodenham, Salisbury, July 16, 1861.

I feel that I ought not to have so long delayed writing to thank you for your very kind letter to me about my article on your book in "Macmillan's Magazine."

I feel that I shouldn't have taken so long to write and thank you for your very kind letter about my article on your book in "Macmillan's Magazine."

I was particularly anxious to point out that the method of investigation pursued was in every respect philosophically correct. I was spending an evening last week with my friend Mr. John Stuart Mill, and I am sure you will be pleased to hear from such an authority that he considers that your reasoning throughout is in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic. He also says the method of investigation you have followed is the only one proper to such a subject.

I really wanted to highlight that the approach you took in your investigation was completely philosophically sound. Last week, I spent the evening with my friend Mr. John Stuart Mill, and I'm sure you'll be glad to hear from such a respected figure that he believes your reasoning is entirely consistent with strict logic principles. He also mentioned that the method of investigation you've used is the only appropriate one for this topic.

It is easy for an antagonistic reviewer, when he finds it difficult to answer your arguments, to attempt to dispose of the whole matter by uttering some such commonplace as "This is not a Baconian induction."

It’s simple for a hostile reviewer, when they struggle to counter your points, to try to dismiss everything by saying something like, “This isn’t a Baconian induction.”

I expect shortly to be spending a few days in your neighbourhood, and if I should not be intruding upon you, I should esteem it a great favour if you will allow me to call on you, and have half an hour's conversation with you.

I plan to spend a few days in your area soon, and if it wouldn’t be an inconvenience, I would really appreciate it if you could let me stop by for a half hour to chat.

As far as I am personally concerned, I am sure I ought to be grateful to you, for since my accident nothing has given me so much pleasure as the perusal of your book. Such studies are now a great resource to me.

As far as I'm concerned, I know I should be grateful to you, because since my accident, nothing has brought me as much joy as reading your book. These studies have become a huge help to me.

LETTER 130. TO C. LYELL. 2, Hesketh Terrace, Torquay {August 2nd, 1861}.

I declare that you read the reviews on the "Origin" more carefully than I do. I agree with all your remarks. The point of correlation struck me as well put, and on varieties growing together; but I have already begun to put things in train for information on this latter head, on which Bronn also enlarges. With respect to sexuality, I have often speculated on it, and have always concluded that we are too ignorant to speculate: no physiologist can conjecture why the two elements go to form a new being, and, more than that, why nature strives at uniting the two elements from two individuals. What I am now working at in my orchids is an admirable illustration of the law. I should certainly conclude that all sexuality had descended from one prototype. Do you not underrate the degree of lowness of organisation in which sexuality occurs—viz., in Hydra, and still lower in some of the one-celled free confervae which "conjugate," which good judges (Thwaites) believe is the simplest form of true sexual generation? (130/1. See Letter 97.) But the whole case is a mystery.

I think you pay more attention to the reviews on the "Origin" than I do. I agree with all your comments. The connection you made stood out to me, especially regarding varieties growing together; however, I've already started gathering information on that, which Bronn also talks about. As for sexuality, I've often thought about it and have come to the conclusion that we know too little to speculate: no physiologist can guess why the two elements combine to create a new being and, more importantly, why nature attempts to unite the two from different individuals. What I'm currently studying in my orchids is a great example of this principle. I would definitely argue that all sexuality comes from one prototype. Don't you underestimate the level of simplicity in the organisms where sexuality occurs—like in Hydra, and even simpler in some of the one-celled free confervae that "conjugate," which qualified experts (like Thwaites) believe is the most basic form of true sexual reproduction? (130/1. See Letter 97.) But the whole situation remains a mystery.

There is another point on which I have occasionally wished to say a few words. I believe you think with Asa Gray that I have not allowed enough for the stream of variation having been guided by a higher power. I have had lately a good deal of correspondence on this head. Herschel, in his "Physical Geography" (130/2. "Physical Geography of the Globe," by Sir John F.W. Herschel, Edinburgh, 1861. On page 12 Herschel writes of the revelations of Geology pointing to successive submersions and reconstructions of the continents and fresh races of animals and plants. He refers to a "great law of change" which has not operated either by a gradually progressing variation of species, nor by a sudden and total abolition of one race...The following footnote on page 12 of the "Physical Geography" was added in January, 1861: "This was written previous to the publication of Mr. Darwin's work on the "Origin of Species," a work which, whatever its merit or ingenuity, we cannot, however, consider as having disproved the view taken in the text. We can no more accept the principle of arbitrary and casual variation and natural selection as a sufficient account, per se, of the past and present organic world, than we can receive the Laputan method of composing books (pushed a outrance) as a sufficient one of Shakespeare and the "Principia." Equally in either case an intelligence, guided by a purpose, must be continually in action to bias the directions of the steps of change—to regulate their amount, to limit their divergence, and to continue them in a definite course. We do not believe that Mr. Darwin means to deny the necessity of such intelligent direction. But it does not, so far as we can see, enter into the formula of this law, and without it we are unable to conceive how far the law can have led to the results. On the other hand, we do not mean to deny that such intelligence may act according to a law (that is to say, on a preconceived and definite plan). Such law, stated in words, would be no other than the actual observed law of organic succession; a one more general, taking that form when applied to our own planet, and including all the links of the chain which have disappeared. BUT THE ONE LAW IS A NECESSARY SUPPLEMENT TO THE OTHER, AND OUGHT, IN ALL LOGICAL PROPRIETY, TO FORM A PART OF ITS ENUNCIATION. Granting this, and with some demur as to the genesis of man, we are far from disposed to repudiate the view taken of this mysterious subject in Mr. Darwin's book." The sentence in italics is no doubt the one referred to in the letter to Lyell. See Letter 243.), has a sentence with respect to the "Origin," something to the effect that the higher law of Providential Arrangement should always be stated. But astronomers do not state that God directs the course of each comet and planet. The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the appearance of new species out of the range of science. But what makes me most object to Asa Gray's view is the study of the extreme variability of domestic animals. He who does not suppose that each variation in the pigeon was providentially caused, by accumulating which variations, man made a Fantail, cannot, I think, logically argue that the tail of the woodpecker was formed by variations providentially ordained. It seems to me that variations in the domestic and wild conditions are due to unknown causes, and are without purpose, and in so far accidental; and that they become purposeful only when they are selected by man for his pleasure, or by what we call Natural Selection in the struggle for life, and under changing conditions. I do not wish to say that God did not foresee everything which would ensue; but here comes very nearly the same sort of wretched imbroglio as between freewill and preordained necessity. I doubt whether I have made what I think clear; but certainly A. Gray's notion of the courses of variation having been led like a stream of water by gravity, seems to me to smash the whole affair. It reminds me of a Spaniard whom I told I was trying to make out how the Cordillera was formed; and he answered me that it was useless, for "God made them." It may be said that God foresaw how they would be made. I wonder whether Herschel would say that you ought always to give the higher providential law, and declare that God had ordered all certain changes of level, that certain mountains should arise. I must think that such views of Asa Gray and Herschel merely show that the subject in their minds is in Comte's theological stage of science...

There’s another point I’ve sometimes wanted to discuss. I think you agree with Asa Gray that I haven’t given enough consideration to the idea that a higher power guided the stream of variation. I’ve had quite a bit of correspondence about this lately. Herschel, in his "Physical Geography" (130/2. "Physical Geography of the Globe," by Sir John F.W. Herschel, Edinburgh, 1861. On page 12, Herschel writes about the revelations of Geology that point to successive submersions and reconstructions of the continents and fresh species of animals and plants. He refers to a "great law of change" that hasn’t worked through a gradual variation of species or through a sudden and complete elimination of one race...The following footnote on page 12 of "Physical Geography" was added in January 1861: "This was written before the publication of Mr. Darwin's work on the 'Origin of Species,' a work which, regardless of its merit or cleverness, we cannot consider as having disproven the view presented in the text. We cannot accept the principle of arbitrary and random variation and natural selection as a sufficient explanation, by itself, of the past and present organic world, any more than we can accept the Laputan method of writing books (taken to extremes) as sufficient to account for Shakespeare and the 'Principia.' In either case, an intelligence, guided by a purpose, must be continually at work to influence the directions of change—to regulate their extent, limit their divergence, and keep them on a specific path. We do not think Mr. Darwin intends to deny the need for such intelligent direction. But, as far as we can see, it doesn't seem to be part of the formula of this law, and without it, we struggle to understand how far the law has contributed to the results. On the other hand, we don’t deny that such intelligence may operate according to a law (that is, based on a preconceived and specific plan). Such a law, when stated in words, would simply be the observed law of organic succession; a more general law that, when applied to our planet, includes all the links of the chain that have vanished. BUT ONE LAW IS A NECESSARY SUPPLEMENT TO THE OTHER AND SHOULD, IN ALL LOGICAL PROPRIETY, BE PART OF ITS EXPOSITION. Accepting this, and with some reservations about the origin of humanity, we are not inclined to reject the view of this mysterious subject in Mr. Darwin's book." The italicized sentence is undoubtedly the one mentioned in the letter to Lyell. See Letter 243.), has a sentence regarding the "Origin," suggesting that the higher law of Providential Arrangement should always be acknowledged. However, astronomers don’t claim that God directs the path of every comet and planet. The idea that each variation was intentionally arranged seems to make Natural Selection completely unnecessary and, in fact, takes the whole issue of the emergence of new species beyond the scope of science. What bothers me most about Asa Gray's view is the examination of the extreme variability in domestic animals. Anyone who doesn’t believe that each variation in the pigeon was intentionally induced, which allowed humans to breed a Fantail, cannot logically argue that the tail of the woodpecker was shaped by variations intentionally predefined. It seems to me that the variations in both domestic and wild conditions arise from unknown causes, lacking intention, and are, to some extent, accidental; they only become purposeful when selected by humans for enjoyment or through what we refer to as Natural Selection in the struggle for survival under changing conditions. I don’t mean to suggest that God didn’t foresee everything that would occur; however, this brings up a similar convoluted mess as the debate between free will and predestined necessity. I’m not sure I’ve made my thoughts clear, but definitely, A. Gray's idea that the courses of variation are guided like a stream by gravity seems to undermine the whole concept. It reminds me of a Spanish person I once told I was trying to understand how the Cordillera was formed, and he replied it was pointless because "God made them." One could argue that God foresaw how they would be made. I wonder if Herschel would say that you should always reference the higher providential law and claim that God ordered all certain changes in elevation, that certain mountains should rise. I think Asa Gray's and Herschel's perspectives indicate that the subject, in their view, resides in Comte's theological stage of science...

Of course I do not want any answer to my quasi-theological discussion, but only for you to think of my notions, if you understand them.

Of course, I don't expect any answers to my almost-theological discussion; I just want you to consider my ideas, if you understand them.

I hope to Heaven your long and great labours on your new edition are drawing to a close.

I hope to God your extensive work on your new edition is finally coming to an end.

LETTER 131. TO C. LYELL. Torquay, {August 13th, 1861}.

Very many thanks for the orchids, which have proved extremely useful to me in two ways I did not anticipate, but were too monstrous (yet of some use) for my special purpose.

Thanks so much for the orchids, which turned out to be incredibly helpful to me in two unexpected ways that were quite extreme (but still somewhat useful) for my specific purpose.

When you come to "Deification" (131/1. See Letter 105, note.), ask yourself honestly whether what you are thinking applies to the endless variations of domestic productions, which man accumulates for his mere fancy or use. No doubt these are all caused by some unknown law, but I cannot believe they were ordained for any purpose, and if not so ordained under domesticity, I can see no reason to believe that they were ordained in a state of nature. Of course it may be said, when you kick a stone, or a leaf falls from a tree, that it was ordained, before the foundations of the world were laid, exactly where that stone or leaf should lie. In this sense the subject has no interest for me.

When you get to "Deification" (131/1. See Letter 105, note.), ask yourself honestly if what you're thinking applies to the countless variations of household items that people collect just for their own enjoyment or use. There's no doubt these are all caused by some unknown law, but I can't believe they were intended for any specific purpose, and if they weren't intended under domesticity, I see no reason to think they were meant to exist in nature. Sure, you could say that when you kick a stone or when a leaf falls from a tree, it was determined, before the world was created, exactly where that stone or leaf should end up. In that sense, the topic doesn't interest me at all.

Once again, many thanks for the orchids; you must let me repay you what you paid the collector.

Once again, thank you so much for the orchids; you have to let me pay you back the amount you spent on the collector.

LETTER 132. TO C. LYELL.

(132/1. The first paragraph probably refers to the proof-sheets of Lyell's "Antiquity of Man," but the passage referred to seems not to occur in the book.)

(132/1. The first paragraph likely refers to the proof sheets of Lyell's "Antiquity of Man," but the mentioned passage doesn’t seem to be in the book.)

Torquay, August 21st {1861}.

Torquay, August 21, 1861.

...I have really no criticism, except a trifling one in pencil near the end, which I have inserted on account of dominant and important species generally varying most. You speak of "their views" rather as if you were a thousand miles away from such wretches, but your concluding paragraph shows that you are one of the wretches.

...I don’t have much to criticize, just a minor note in pencil towards the end that I added because dominant and important species usually vary the most. You refer to "their views" as if you're a thousand miles away from those unfortunate people, but your final paragraph shows that you're one of them.

I am pleased that you approve of Hutton's review. (132/2. "Some Remarks on Mr. Darwin's Theory," by F.W. Hutton. "Geologist," Volume IV., page 132 (1861). See Letter 124.) It seemed to me to take a more philosophical view of the manner of judging the question than any other review. The sentence you quote from it seems very true, but I do not agree with the theological conclusion. I think he quotes from Asa Gray, certainly not from me; but I have neither A. Gray nor "Origin" with me. Indeed, I have over and over again said in the "Origin" that Natural Selection does nothing without variability; I have given a whole chapter on laws, and used the strongest language how ignorant we are on these laws. But I agree that I have somehow (Hooker says it is owing to my title) not made the great and manifest importance of previous variability plain enough. Breeders constantly speak of Selection as the one great means of improvement; but of course they imply individual differences, and this I should have thought would have been obvious to all in Natural Selection; but it has not been so.

I’m glad you liked Hutton’s review. (132/2. "Some Remarks on Mr. Darwin's Theory," by F.W. Hutton. "Geologist," Volume IV., page 132 (1861). See Letter 124.) I found it to take a more philosophical approach to the question than any other review. The sentence you quoted seems very true, but I don’t agree with the theological conclusion. I think he cites Asa Gray, definitely not me; however, I don’t have either A. Gray or "Origin" with me. In fact, I have repeatedly stated in the "Origin" that Natural Selection can't do anything without variability; I dedicated an entire chapter to laws, emphasizing how little we understand them. But I agree that I haven’t made the significant and obvious importance of previous variability clear enough somehow (Hooker says it's because of my title). Breeders often refer to Selection as the primary method of improvement, but they obviously mean individual differences, and I thought this would be clear in Natural Selection; but it hasn’t been.

I have just said that I cannot agree with "which variations are the effects of an unknown law, ordained and guided without doubt by an intelligent cause on a preconceived and definite plan." Will you honestly tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that the shape of my nose (eheu!) was ordained and "guided by an intelligent cause?" (132/3. It should be remembered that the shape of his nose nearly determined Fitz-Roy to reject Darwin as naturalist to H.M.S. "Beagle" ("Life and Letters," I., page 60).) By the selection of analogous and less differences fanciers make almost generic differences in their pigeons; and can you see any good reason why the Natural Selection of analogous individual differences should not make new species? If you say that God ordained that at some time and place a dozen slight variations should arise, and that one of them alone should be preserved in the struggle for life and the other eleven should perish in the first or few first generations, then the saying seems to me mere verbiage. It comes to merely saying that everything that is, is ordained.

I just mentioned that I can’t agree with the idea that "the variations are the effects of an unknown law, ordained and guided without doubt by an intelligent cause on a preconceived and definite plan." Can you honestly tell me (and I’d really appreciate it) whether you believe that the shape of my nose (ugh!) was ordained and "guided by an intelligent cause?" (132/3. It's important to note that the shape of his nose almost led Fitz-Roy to reject Darwin as the naturalist for H.M.S. "Beagle" ("Life and Letters," I., page 60).) By selecting similar and minor differences, breeders create almost generic differences in their pigeons; can you think of a good reason why the natural selection of similar individual differences couldn’t create new species? If you claim that God ordained that at some time and place, a dozen slight variations should appear, and that only one of them would survive in the struggle for life while the other eleven would die off in the first few generations, then that statement just sounds like empty talk to me. It basically just says that everything that exists is ordained.

Let me add another sentence. Why should you or I speak of variation as having been ordained and guided, more than does an astronomer, in discussing the fall of a meteoric stone? He would simply say that it was drawn to our earth by the attraction of gravity, having been displaced in its course by the action of some quite unknown laws. Would you have him say that its fall at some particular place and time was "ordained and guided without doubt by an intelligent cause on a preconceived and definite plan"? Would you not call this theological pedantry or display? I believe it is not pedantry in the case of species, simply because their formation has hitherto been viewed as beyond law; in fact, this branch of science is still with most people under its theological phase of development. The conclusion which I always come to after thinking of such questions is that they are beyond the human intellect; and the less one thinks on them the better. You may say, Then why trouble me? But I should very much like to know clearly what you think.

Let me add another thought. Why should you or I talk about variation as if it were controlled or guided, more than an astronomer would when discussing the fall of a meteorite? The astronomer would simply say it was pulled to our Earth by gravity, having been changed in its path by some unknown laws. Would you have him say that its fall at a specific place and time was "controlled and guided without a doubt by an intelligent force according to a planned purpose"? Wouldn't you consider that theological nonsense or show-off behavior? I don’t think it’s nonsense when it comes to species, simply because their formation has usually been seen as beyond the reach of natural law; in fact, most people still see this area of science as being under a theological view. The conclusion I always reach after pondering such questions is that they are beyond human understanding; and the less we think about them, the better. You might ask, then why bother me with this? But I would really like to know exactly what you think.

LETTER 133. TO HENRY FAWCETT.

(133/1. The following letter was published in the "Life" of Mr. Fawcett (1885); we are indebted to Mrs. Fawcett and Messrs. Smith & Elder for permission to reprint it. See Letter 129.)

(133/1. The following letter was published in the "Life" of Mr. Fawcett (1885); we owe thanks to Mrs. Fawcett and Messrs. Smith & Elder for allowing us to reprint it. See Letter 129.)

September 18th {1861}.

September 18, 1861.

I wondered who had so kindly sent me the newspaper (133/2. The newspaper sent was the "Manchester Examiner" for September 9th, 1861, containing a report of Mr. Fawcett's address given before Section D of the British Association, "On the method of Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the origin of species," in which the speaker showed that the "method of investigation pursued by Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the origin of species is in strict accordance with the principles of logic." The "A" of the letter (as published in Fawcett's Life) is the late Professor Williamson, who is reported to have said that "while he would not say that Mr. Darwin's book had caused him a loss of reputation, he was sure that it had not caused a gain." The reference to "B" is explained by the report of the late Dr. Lankester's speech in which he said, "The facts brought forward in support of the hypothesis had a very different value indeed from that of the hypothesis...A great naturalist, who was still a friend of Mr. Darwin, once said to him (Dr. Lankester), 'The mistake is, that Darwin has dealt with origin. Why did he not put his facts before us, and let them rest?'" Another speaker, the Rt. Hon. J.R. Napier, remarked: "I am going to speak closely to the question. If the hypothesis is put forward to contradict facts, and the averments are contrary to the Word of God, I say that it is not a logical argument." At this point the chairman, Professor Babington, wisely interfered, on the ground that the meeting was a scientific one.), which I was very glad to see; and now I have to thank you sincerely for allowing me to see your MS. It seems to me very good and sound; though I am certainly not an impartial judge. You will have done good service in calling the attention of scientific men to means and laws of philosophising. As far as I could judge by the papers, your opponents were unworthy of you. How miserably A. talked of my reputation, as if that had anything to do with it!...How profoundly ignorant B must be of the very soul of observation! About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember some one saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!

I wondered who had been so kind as to send me the newspaper (133/2. The newspaper sent was the "Manchester Examiner" for September 9th, 1861, which included a report of Mr. Fawcett's speech before Section D of the British Association, "On the method of Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the origin of species." In this speech, the speaker argued that "the method of investigation pursued by Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the origin of species is in strict accordance with the principles of logic." The "A" mentioned in the letter (as published in Fawcett's Life) refers to the late Professor Williamson, who reportedly said, "while I wouldn't claim that Mr. Darwin's book affected my reputation, I am certain it didn't enhance it." The reference to "B" is clarified by the report of the late Dr. Lankester's speech, where he stated, "The facts presented in support of the hypothesis had a very different value indeed from that of the hypothesis... A great naturalist, who remained a friend of Mr. Darwin, once said to him (Dr. Lankester), 'The mistake is that Darwin has focused on origin. Why didn’t he just present his facts and let them stand?'” Another speaker, the Rt. Hon. J.R. Napier, commented: "I'm going to speak directly to the question. If the hypothesis is put forward to refute facts, and the claims contradict the Word of God, I say that it’s not a logical argument." At this point, the chairman, Professor Babington, wisely intervened, emphasizing that the meeting was scientific in nature), which I was very pleased to see; and now I sincerely thank you for allowing me to review your manuscript. It seems very good and solid to me, though I know I'm not an impartial judge. You will have done a great service by bringing the attention of scientific minds to the methods and principles of philosophical thinking. From what I could gather from the papers, your opponents were undeserving of you. How miserably A spoke about my reputation, as if that had anything to do with this!... How profoundly ignorant B must be concerning the very essence of observation! About thirty years ago, there was much discussion about geologists only observing and not theorizing; I clearly remember someone saying that at this rate, a person might as well just walk into a gravel pit, count the pebbles, and describe their colors. How strange it is that anyone fails to see that all observation must support or oppose some viewpoint if it is to be of any use!

I have returned only lately from a two months' visit to Torquay, which did my health at the time good; but I am one of those miserable creatures who are never comfortable for twenty-four hours; and it is clear to me that I ought to be exterminated. I have been rather idle of late, or, speaking more strictly, working at some miscellaneous papers, which, however, have some direct bearing on the subject of species; yet I feel guilty at having neglected my larger book. But, to me, observing is much better sport than writing. I fear that I shall have wearied you with this long note.

I just got back from a two-month visit to Torquay, which was good for my health at the time; but I'm one of those miserable people who can never feel comfortable for even a day. It's clear to me that I should probably be wiped out. I've been a bit lazy lately, or to be more precise, working on some random papers that are related to the topic of species; still, I feel guilty for neglecting my bigger book. But honestly, observing is way more fun than writing for me. I’m afraid I might have bored you with this long note.

Pray believe that I feel sincerely grateful that you have taken up the cudgels in defence of the line of argument in the "Origin;" you will have benefited the subject.

Please believe that I am genuinely thankful that you have stood up for the argument in the "Origin;" you will have helped the topic.

Many are so fearful of speaking out. A German naturalist came here the other day; and he tells me that there are many in Germany on our side, but that all seem fearful of speaking out, and waiting for some one to speak, and then many will follow. The naturalists seem as timid as young ladies should be, about their scientific reputation. There is much discussion on the subject on the Continent, even in quiet Holland; and I had a pamphlet from Moscow the other day by a man who sticks up famously for the imperfection of the "Geological Record," but complains that I have sadly understated the variability of the old fossilised animals! But I must not run on.

Many people are really afraid to speak up. A German naturalist visited recently and told me that there are many people in Germany who support our cause, but they all seem too afraid to voice their opinions and are waiting for someone else to take the lead before they join in. The naturalists are as timid as young women regarding their scientific reputations. There's a lot of discussion on this issue across Europe, even in quiet Holland. I recently received a pamphlet from Moscow by a guy who strongly defends the shortcomings of the "Geological Record," but he complains that I have seriously downplayed the variability of the ancient fossilized animals! But I shouldn't ramble on.

LETTER 134. TO H.W. BATES. Down, September 25th {1861}.

Now for a few words on science. Many thanks for facts on neuters. You cannot tell how I rejoice that you do not think what I have said on the subject absurd. Only two persons have even noticed it to me—viz., the bitter sneer of Owen in the "Edinburgh Review" (134/1. "Edinburgh Review," April, 1860, page 525.), and my good friend and supporter, Sir C. Lyell, who could only screw up courage to say, "Well, you have manfully faced the difficulty."

Now, a few words about science. Thanks a lot for the information on neuters. You have no idea how happy I am that you don’t think my remarks on the topic are ridiculous. Only two people have even acknowledged it to me—namely, the harsh criticism from Owen in the "Edinburgh Review" (134/1. "Edinburgh Review," April, 1860, page 525.), and my good friend and supporter, Sir C. Lyell, who could only muster the courage to say, "Well, you have bravely faced the challenge."

What a wonderful case of Volucella of which I had never heard. (134/2. Volucella is a fly—one of the Syrphidae—supposed to supply a case of mimicry; this was doubtless the point of interest with Bates. Dr. Sharp says {"Insects," Part II. (in the Camb. Nat. Hist. series), 1899, page 500}: "It was formerly assumed that the Volucella larvae lived on the larvae of the bees, and that the parent flies were providentially endowed with a bee-like appearance that they might obtain entrance into the bees' nests without being detected." Dr. Sharp goes on to say that what little is known on the subject supports the belief that the "presence of the Volucella in the nests is advantageous to both fly and bee.") I had no idea such a case occurred in nature; I must get and see specimens in British Museum. I hope and suppose you will give a good deal of Natural History in your Travels; every one cares about ants—more notice has been taken about slave-ants in the "Origin" than of any other passage.

What a fascinating case of Volucella that I had never heard of before. (134/2. Volucella is a type of fly—one of the Syrphidae—that is thought to be an example of mimicry; this was probably what intrigued Bates. Dr. Sharp mentions in {"Insects," Part II. (in the Camb. Nat. Hist. series), 1899, page 500}: "It was previously believed that Volucella larvae fed on bee larvae, and that the adult flies were naturally designed to look like bees so they could enter the bees' nests without being noticed." Dr. Sharp continues by saying that what little is known about this topic suggests that "the presence of Volucella in the nests benefits both the fly and the bee.") I had no idea such a thing existed in nature; I need to go see specimens at the British Museum. I hope you’ll include a good bit of Natural History in your Travels; everyone is interested in ants—there's been more attention given to slave-ants in the "Origin" than to any other section.

I fully expect to delight in your Travels. Keep to simple style, as in your excellent letters,—but I beg pardon, I am again advising.

I really look forward to enjoying your travels. Stick to a straightforward style, like in your great letters—but I apologize, I’m advising again.

What a capital paper yours will be on mimetic resemblances! You will make quite a new subject of it. I had thought of such cases as a difficulty; and once, when corresponding with Dr. Collingwood, I thought of your explanation; but I drove it from my mind, for I felt that I had not knowledge to judge one way or the other. Dr C., I think, states that the mimetic forms inhabit the same country, but I did not know whether to believe him. What wonderful cases yours seem to be! Could you not give a few woodcuts in your Travels to illustrate this? I am tired with a hard day's work, so no more, except to give my sincere thanks and hearty wishes for the success of your Travels.

What a fantastic paper you’ll write on mimetic resemblances! You’ll create a whole new perspective on it. I had considered such cases a challenge, and once, when I was in touch with Dr. Collingwood, I thought of your explanation. But I pushed it out of my mind because I felt I didn’t have enough knowledge to make a judgment either way. Dr. C. mentions that the mimetic forms live in the same area, but I wasn’t sure whether to trust him. Your examples sound amazing! Could you include a few illustrations in your Travels to show this? I’m worn out from a long day at work, so I’ll stop here, but I want to express my sincere thanks and best wishes for the success of your Travels.

LETTER 135. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 18th {1862}.

LETTER 135. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 18, 1862.

Your letter discusses lots of interesting subjects, and I am very glad you have sent for your letter to Bates. (135/1. Published in Mr. Clodd's memoir of Bates in the "Naturalist on the Amazons," 1892, page l.) What do you mean by "individual plants"? (135/2. In a letter to Mr. Darwin dated March 17th, 1862, Sir J.D. Hooker had discussed a supposed difference between animals and plants, "inasmuch as the individual animal is certainly changed materially by external conditions, the latter (I think) never, except in such a coarse way as stunting or enlarging—e.g. no increase of cold on the spot, or change of individual plant from hot to cold, will induce said individual plant to get more woolly covering; but I suppose a series of cold seasons would bring about such a change in an individual quadruped, just as rowing will harden hands, etc.") I fancied a bud lived only a year, and you could hardly expect any change in that time; but if you call a tree or plant an individual, you have sporting buds. Perhaps you mean that the whole tree does not change. Tulips, in "breaking," change. Fruit seems certainly affected by the stock. I think I have (135/3. See note, Letter 16.) got cases of slight change in alpine plants transplanted. All these subjects have rather gone out of my head owing to orchids, but I shall soon have to enter on them in earnest when I come again to my volume on variation under domestication.

Your letter covers a lot of interesting topics, and I'm really glad you reached out about your letter to Bates. (135/1. Published in Mr. Clodd's memoir of Bates in the "Naturalist on the Amazons," 1892, page l.) What do you mean by "individual plants"? (135/2. In a letter to Mr. Darwin dated March 17th, 1862, Sir J.D. Hooker discussed a supposed difference between animals and plants, "inasmuch as the individual animal is certainly changed materially by external conditions, the latter (I think) never, except in such a coarse way as stunting or enlarging—e.g. no increase of cold on the spot, or change of individual plant from hot to cold, will induce said individual plant to get more woolly covering; but I suppose a series of cold seasons would bring about such a change in an individual quadruped, just as rowing will harden hands, etc.") I thought a bud only lived for a year, so you wouldn’t expect any change in that time; but if you consider a tree or plant an individual, then you have sporting buds. Maybe you mean that the entire tree doesn’t change. Tulips, when "breaking," do change. Fruit definitely seems influenced by the stock. I think I have (135/3. See note, Letter 16.) found cases of slight changes in alpine plants that were transplanted. All these topics have somewhat slipped my mind because of orchids, but I’ll need to dive back into them seriously when I revisit my volume on variation under domestication.

...In the lifetime of an animal you would, I think, find it very difficult to show effects of external condition on animals more than shade and light, good and bad soil, produce on a plant.

...In an animal's lifetime, I believe it would be quite challenging to demonstrate the impact of external conditions on animals beyond just shade and light, as well as good and bad soil affecting a plant.

You speak of "an inherent tendency to vary wholly independent of physical conditions"! This is a very simple way of putting the case (as Dr. Prosper Lucas also puts it) (135/4. Prosper Lucas, the author of "Traite philosophique et physiologique de l'heredite naturelle dans les etats de sante et de maladie du systeme nerveux": 2 volumes, Paris, 1847-50.): but two great classes of facts make me think that all variability is due to change in the conditions of life: firstly, that there is more variability and more monstrosities (and these graduate into each other) under unnatural domestic conditions than under nature; and, secondly, that changed conditions affect in an especial manner the reproductive organs—those organs which are to produce a new being. But why one seedling out of thousands presents some new character transcends the wildest powers of conjecture. It was in this sense that I spoke of "climate," etc., possibly producing without selection a hooked seed, or any not great variation. (135/5. This statement probably occurs in a letter, and not in Darwin's published works.)

You talk about "an inherent tendency to vary completely independent of physical conditions"! That's a pretty straightforward way to put it (as Dr. Prosper Lucas also explains it) (135/4. Prosper Lucas, the author of "Traite philosophique et physiologique de l'heredite naturelle dans les etats de sante et de maladie du systeme nerveux": 2 volumes, Paris, 1847-50.): but two major categories of facts lead me to believe that all variability is caused by changes in living conditions: first, there's more variability and more abnormalities (which gradually blend into each other) under unnatural domestic conditions than in nature; and second, changed conditions especially impact the reproductive organs—those organs responsible for creating new beings. But why one seedling out of thousands shows some new characteristic goes beyond the wildest guesses. It was in this context that I mentioned "climate," etc., possibly producing a hooked seed or any minor variation without selection. (135/5. This statement probably occurs in a letter, and not in Darwin's published works.)

I have for years and years been fighting with myself not to attribute too much to Natural Selection—to attribute something to direct action of conditions; and perhaps I have too much conquered my tendency to lay hardly any stress on conditions of life.

I have been struggling for many years not to give too much credit to Natural Selection—while also considering the direct influence of environmental conditions; and maybe I've overly restrained my tendency to emphasize life conditions.

I am not shaken about "saltus" (135/6. Sir Joseph had written, March 17th, 1862: "Huxley is rather disposed to think you have overlooked saltus, but I am not sure that he is right—saltus quoad individuals is not saltus quoad species—as I pointed out in the Begonia case, though perhaps that was rather special pleading in the present state of science." For the Begonia case, see "Life and Letters," II., page 275, also letter 110, page 166.), I did not write without going pretty carefully into all the cases of normal structure in animals resembling monstrosities which appear per saltus.

I am not worried about "saltus" (135/6. Sir Joseph wrote on March 17th, 1862: "Huxley seems to think you might have overlooked saltus, but I'm not sure he's right—saltus regarding individuals is not the same as saltus regarding species—as I pointed out in the Begonia case, although maybe I was just making a special argument given the current state of science." For the Begonia case, see "Life and Letters," II., page 275, also letter 110, page 166.), I didn't write without carefully examining all the cases of normal structure in animals that resemble monstrosities which appear per saltus.

LETTER 136. TO J.D. HOOKER. 26th {March, 1862}.

LETTER 136. TO J.D. HOOKER. March 26, 1862.

Thanks also for your own (136/1. See note in Letter 135.) and Bates' letter now returned. They are both excellent; you have, I think, said all that can be said against direct effects of conditions, and capitally put. But I still stick to my own and Bates' side. Nevertheless I am pleased to attribute little to conditions, and I wish I had done what you suggest—started on the fundamental principle of variation being an innate principle, and afterwards made a few remarks showing that hereafter, perhaps, this principle would be explicable. Whenever my book on poultry, pigeons, ducks, and rabbits is published, with all the measurements and weighings of bones, I think you will see that "use and disuse" at least have some effect. I do not believe in perfect reversion. I rather demur to your doctrine of "centrifugal variation." (136/2. The "doctrine of centrifugal variation" is given in Sir J.D. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania" (Part III. of the Botany of the Antarctic Expedition), 1859, page viii. In paragraph 10 the author writes: "The tendency of varieties, both in nature and under cultivation...is rather to depart more and more widely from the original type than to revert to it." In Sir Joseph's letter to Bates (loc. cit., page lii) he wrote: "Darwin also believes in some reversion to type which is opposed to my view of variation." It may be noted in this connection that Mr. Galton has shown reason to believe in a centripetal tendency in variation (to use Hooker's phraseology) which is not identical with the reversion of cultivated plants to their ancestors, the case to which Hooker apparently refers. See "Natural Inheritance," by F. Galton, 1889.) I suppose you do not agree with or do not remember my doctrine of the good of diversification (136/3. Darwin usually used the word "divergence" in this connection.); this seems to me amply to account for variation being centrifugal—if you forget it, look at this discussion (page 117 of 3rd edition), it was the best point which, according to my notions, I made out, and it has always pleased me. It is really curiously satisfactory to me to see so able a man as Bates (and yourself) believing more fully in Natural Selection than I think I even do myself. (136/4. This refers to a very interesting passage in Hooker's letter to Bates (loc. cit., page liii): "I am sure that with you, as with me, the more you think the less occasion you will see for anything but time and natural selection to effect change; and that this view is the simplest and clearest in the present state of science is one advantage, at any rate. Indeed, I think that it is, in the present state of the inquiry, the legitimate position to take up; it is time enough to bother our heads with the secondary cause when there is some evidence of it or some demand for it—at present I do not see one or the other, and so feel inclined to renounce any other for the present.") By the way, I always boast to you, and so I think Owen will be wrong that my book will be forgotten in ten years, for a French edition is now going through the press and a second German edition wanted. Your long letter to Bates has set my head working, and makes me repent of the nine months spent on orchids; though I know not why I should not have amused myself on them as well as slaving on bones of ducks and pigeons, etc. The orchids have been splendid sport, though at present I am fearfully sick of them.

Thanks for your own (136/1. See note in Letter 135.) and Bates' letter, which I'm returning. They're both excellent; you've really nailed everything that can be said against the direct effects of conditions, and you expressed it brilliantly. But I still stand with my own and Bates' perspective. That said, I'm happy to give little weight to conditions, and I wish I had taken your suggestion to start with the fundamental idea of variation being an innate principle, and then added a few comments explaining that this principle might be understandable later. Whenever my book on poultry, pigeons, ducks, and rabbits is published, complete with all the measurements and weight of bones, I think you'll see that "use and disuse" at least has some impact. I don't believe in perfect reversion. I have some reservations about your idea of "centrifugal variation." (136/2. The "doctrine of centrifugal variation" is discussed in Sir J.D. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania" (Part III. of the Botany of the Antarctic Expedition), 1859, page viii. In paragraph 10, the author writes: "The tendency of varieties, both in nature and under cultivation...is rather to depart more and more widely from the original type than to revert to it." In Sir Joseph's letter to Bates (loc. cit., page lii), he wrote: "Darwin also believes in some reversion to type which is opposed to my view of variation." It may be noted in this context that Mr. Galton has found reasons to believe in a centripetal tendency in variation (to use Hooker's terminology) which is not the same as the reversion of cultivated plants to their ancestors, the case Hooker seems to refer to. See "Natural Inheritance," by F. Galton, 1889.) I suppose you don't agree with or don't recall my view on the benefits of diversification (136/3. Darwin typically used the term "divergence" in this context.); to me, this clearly explains why variation is centrifugal—if you've forgotten this, check out this discussion (page 117 of the 3rd edition), as I think it was the best point I made, and it's always pleased me. It's really oddly satisfying to see such knowledgeable guys as Bates (and you) believing more strongly in Natural Selection than I think I do myself. (136/4. This refers to a very interesting passage in Hooker's letter to Bates (loc. cit., page liii): "I am sure that with you, as with me, the more you think the less reason you will find for anything other than time and natural selection to bring about change; and that this view is the simplest and clearest in the current state of science is one advantage, at least. In fact, I think that in the current state of inquiry, this is the logical stance to take; it's enough to deal with secondary causes when there's some evidence or demand for them—right now, I don’t see either, so I feel inclined to set them aside for now.") By the way, I always boast to you, and I think Owen will be mistaken, that my book won't be forgotten in ten years because a French edition is currently being printed, and a second German edition is on the way. Your long letter to Bates has got my brain working and makes me regret the nine months I spent on orchids; though I don't know why I shouldn’t have enjoyed working on them as well as toiling over bones of ducks, pigeons, etc. The orchids have been great fun, even though at the moment I’m incredibly tired of them.

I enclose a waste copy of woodcut of Mormodes ignea; I wish you had a plant at Kew, for I am sure its wonderful mechanism and structure would amuse you. Is it not curious the way the labellum sits on the top of the column?—here insects alight and are beautifully shot, when they touch a certain sensitive point, by the pollinia.

I’m sending a throwaway copy of the woodcut of Mormodes ignea. I wish you had one of these plants at Kew because I’m sure its amazing mechanism and structure would fascinate you. Isn’t it interesting how the labellum rests on top of the column? Insects land there and get beautifully shot off when they touch a certain sensitive point, activated by the pollinia.

How kindly you have helped me in my work! Farewell, my dear old fellow.

How generously you’ve supported me in my work! Goodbye, my dear friend.

LETTER 137. TO H.W. BATES. Down, May 4th {1862}.

Hearty thanks for your most interesting letter and three very valuable extracts. I am very glad that you have been looking at the South Temperate insects. I wish that the materials in the British Museum had been richer; but I should think the case of the South American Carabi, supported by some other case, would be worth a paper. To us who theorise I am sure the case is very important. Do the South American Carabi differ more from the other species than do, for instance, the Siberian and European and North American and Himalayan (if the genus exists there)? If they do, I entirely agree with you that the difference would be too great to account for by the recent Glacial period. I agree, also, with you in utterly rejecting an independent origin for these Carabi. There is a difficulty, as far as I know, in our ignorance whether insects change quickly in time; you could judge of this by knowing how far closely allied coleoptera generally have much restricted ranges, for this almost implies rapid change. What a curious case is offered by land-shells, which become modified in every sub-district, and have yet retained the same general structure from very remote geological periods! When working at the Glacial period, I remember feeling much surprised how few birds, no mammals, and very few sea-mollusca seemed to have crossed, or deeply entered, the inter-tropical regions during the cold period. Insects, from all you say, seem to come under the same category. Plants seem to migrate more readily than animals. Do not underrate the length of Glacial period: Forbes used to argue that it was equivalent to the whole of the Pleistocene period in the warmer latitudes. I believe, with you, that we shall be driven to an older Glacial period.

Thanks a lot for your fascinating letter and the three valuable excerpts. I'm really glad to hear that you've been studying the South Temperate insects. I wish the materials at the British Museum had been richer, but I think the case of the South American Carabi, combined with some other examples, would make for a great paper. For those of us who theorize, this case is very significant. Do the South American Carabi differ more from other species than, say, the Siberian, European, North American, and Himalayan (if the genus is present there)? If they do, I completely agree that the difference would be too significant to explain solely by the recent Glacial period. I also agree with you that we should totally reject an independent origin for these Carabi. There's a challenge, as far as I know, in figuring out whether insects evolve quickly over time; you could gauge this by looking at how closely related coleoptera often have very restricted ranges, which seems to suggest rapid change. The case of land-shells is intriguing, as they adapt in every sub-district yet have maintained the same general structure since very ancient geological periods! When studying the Glacial period, I remember being quite surprised at how few birds, no mammals, and very few sea mollusks appeared to have crossed, or penetrated deeply into, the inter-tropical regions during the cold period. It seems that insects, based on everything you mentioned, fit into the same category. Plants appear to migrate more easily than animals. Don’t underestimate the length of the Glacial period: Forbes used to argue that it lasted as long as the entire Pleistocene in warmer regions. I agree with you that we will likely be led to consider an older Glacial period.

I am very sorry to hear about the British Museum; it would be hopeless to contend against any one supported by Owen. Perhaps another chance might occur before very long. How would it be to speak to Owen as soon as your own mind is made up? From what I have heard, since talking to you, I fear the strongest personal interest with a Minister is requisite for a pension.

I’m really sorry to hear about the British Museum; it would be pointless to go up against anyone backed by Owen. Maybe another opportunity will come up soon. How about talking to Owen as soon as you’re sure about what you want? From what I’ve heard since our conversation, I’m afraid that having a strong personal connection with a Minister is essential for getting a pension.

Farewell, and may success attend the acerrimo pro-pugnatori.

Farewell, and may success follow the fierce fighter.

P.S. I deeply wish you could find some situation in which you could give your time to science; it would be a great thing for science and for yourself.

P.S. I really hope you can find a way to dedicate some of your time to science; it would be beneficial for both science and for you.

LETTER 138. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, July 11th {1862}.

I thank you cordially for so kindly and promptly answering my questions. I will quote some of your remarks. The case seems to me of some importance with reference to my heretical notions, for it shows how larvae might be modified. I shall not publish, I daresay, for a year, for much time is expended in experiments. If within this time you should acquire any fresh information on the similarity of the moths of distinct races, and would allow me to quote any facts on your authority, I should feel very grateful.

I sincerely thank you for quickly and kindly answering my questions. I will reference some of your comments. This case seems significant regarding my unconventional ideas, as it demonstrates how larvae might be altered. I probably won't publish for about a year because a lot of time goes into experiments. If you happen to gather any new information on the similarities of moths from different races during this time and would allow me to reference any facts based on your authority, I would greatly appreciate it.

I thank you for your great kindness with respect to the translation of the "Origin;" it is very liberal in you, as we differ to a considerable degree. I have been atrociously abused by my religious countrymen; but as I live an independent life in the country, it does not in the least hurt me in any way, except indeed when the abuse comes from an old friend like Professor Owen, who abuses me and then advances the doctrine that all birds are probably descended from one parent.

I appreciate your kindness regarding the translation of the "Origin;" it's very generous of you, especially since we have significant differences. I've been harshly criticized by my religious countrymen; however, since I lead an independent life in the countryside, it doesn't affect me much—unless the criticism comes from an old friend like Professor Owen, who criticizes me and then promotes the idea that all birds probably come from a single ancestor.

I wish the translator (138/1. Mdlle. Royer, who translated the first French edition of the "Origin.') had known more of Natural History; she must be a clever but singular lady, but I never heard of her till she proposed to translate my book.

I wish the translator (138/1. Mdlle. Royer, who translated the first French edition of the "Origin.") had known more about Natural History; she must be a smart but unusual woman, but I never heard of her until she offered to translate my book.

LETTER 139. TO ASA GRAY. Down, July 23rd {1862}.

I received several days ago two large packets, but have as yet read only your letter; for we have been in fearful distress, and I could attend to nothing. Our poor boy had the rare case of second rash and sore throat...; and, as if this was not enough, a most serious attack of erysipelas, with typhoid symptoms. I despaired of his life; but this evening he has eaten one mouthful, and I think has passed the crisis. He has lived on port wine every three-quarters of an hour, day and night. This evening, to our astonishment, he asked whether his stamps were safe, and I told him of one sent by you, and that he should see it to-morrow. He answered, "I should awfully like to see it now"; so with difficulty he opened his eyelids and glanced at it, and, with a sigh of satisfaction, said, "All right." Children are one's greatest happiness, but often and often a still greater misery. A man of science ought to have none—perhaps not a wife; for then there would be nothing in this wide world worth caring for, and a man might (whether he could is another question) work away like a Trojan. I hope in a few days to get my brains in order, and then I will pick out all your orchid letters, and return them in hopes of your making use of them...

I received two large packets several days ago, but I’ve only read your letter so far because we’ve been going through a really tough time, and I couldn’t focus on anything else. Our poor boy had an unusual case of a second rash and sore throat, and as if that wasn’t enough, he also had a serious attack of erysipelas along with typhoid symptoms. I feared for his life; however, this evening he ate a little bit, and I think he’s past the worst of it. He’s been living on port wine every three-quarters of an hour, day and night. To our surprise, he asked if his stamps were safe, and I told him about one you sent, and that he could see it tomorrow. He replied, "I’d really like to see it now," so he struggled to open his eyes and took a quick look at it, then sighed with satisfaction and said, "All right." Children bring the greatest joy, but they can also be an immense source of misery. A scientist probably shouldn’t have any—maybe not even a wife—because then there would be nothing in this vast world worth caring about, and a man could (whether he can is another question) work tirelessly. I hope to get my thoughts organized in a few days, and then I’ll gather all your orchid letters and return them, hoping you can make use of them...

Of all the carpenters for knocking the right nail on the head, you are the very best; no one else has perceived that my chief interest in my orchid book has been that it was a "flank movement" on the enemy. I live in such solitude that I hear nothing, and have no idea to what you allude about Bentham and the orchids and species. But I must enquire.

Of all the carpenters who hit the nail on the head, you are the best; no one else has realized that my main interest in my orchid book was that it was a "flank movement" against the enemy. I live in such isolation that I hear nothing and have no idea what you're talking about regarding Bentham, the orchids, and the species. But I need to ask.

By the way, one of my chief enemies (the sole one who has annoyed me), namely Owen, I hear has been lecturing on birds; and admits that all have descended from one, and advances as his own idea that the oceanic wingless birds have lost their wings by gradual disuse. He never alludes to me, or only with bitter sneers, and coupled with Buffon and the "Vestiges."

By the way, one of my main enemies (the only one who’s really gotten on my nerves), Owen, I've heard has been giving lectures on birds. He claims that all birds come from one common ancestor and suggests that oceanic wingless birds have gradually lost their wings due to not using them. He never mentions me, or only does so with harsh sarcasm, and links me with Buffon and the "Vestiges."

Well, it has been an amusement to me this first evening, scribbling as egotistically as usual about myself and my doings; so you must forgive me, as I know well your kind heart will do. I have managed to skim the newspaper, but had not heart to read all the bloody details. Good God! What will the end be? Perhaps we are too despondent here; but I must think you are too hopeful on your side of the water. I never believed the "canards" of the army of the Potomac having capitulated. My good dear wife and self are come to wish for peace at any price. Good night, my good friend. I will scribble on no more.

Well, it’s been quite entertaining for me this first evening, writing as self-absorbed as ever about myself and my activities; so you’ll have to forgive me, since I know your kind heart will. I’ve managed to skim the newspaper, but I didn’t have the stomach to read all the gruesome details. Good God! What will the outcome be? Maybe we’re too pessimistic here; but I really think you’re too optimistic on your side of the ocean. I never believed the rumors about the Army of the Potomac surrendering. My dear wife and I are starting to wish for peace at any cost. Good night, my dear friend. I won’t write any more.

One more word. I should like to hear what you think about what I say in the last chapter of the orchid book on the meaning and cause of the endless diversity of means for the same general purpose. It bears on design, that endless question. Good night, good night!

One more thing. I’d love to hear your thoughts on what I said in the last chapter of the orchid book about the meaning and cause of the endless variety of ways to achieve the same general purpose. It relates to design, that never-ending question. Good night, good night!

LETTER 140. TO C. LYELL. 1, Carlton Terrace, Southampton, August 22nd {1862}.

You say that the Bishop and Owen will be down on you (140/1. This refers to the "Antiquity of Man," which was published in 1863.): the latter hardly can, for I was assured that Owen, in his lectures this spring, advanced as a new idea that wingless birds had lost their wings by disuse. (140/2. The first paragraph of this letter was published in "Life and Letters," II., pages 387, 388.) Also that magpies stole spoons, etc., from a remnant of some instinct like that of the bower-bird, which ornaments its playing passage with pretty feathers. Indeed, I am told that he hinted plainly that all birds are descended from one. What an unblushing man he must be to lecture thus after abusing me so, and never to have openly retracted, or alluded to my book!

You say that the Bishop and Owen will come down hard on you (140/1. This refers to the "Antiquity of Man," which was published in 1863.): Owen can hardly do that, since I was told that in his lectures this spring, he put forward a new idea that wingless birds lost their wings due to disuse. (140/2. The first paragraph of this letter was published in "Life and Letters," II., pages 387, 388.) He also mentioned that magpies steal spoons and other things from a leftover instinct similar to that of the bower-bird, which decorates its mating area with pretty feathers. In fact, I’ve heard that he strongly suggested that all birds are descended from one. What a shameless man he must be to lecture like this after attacking me so much and never openly retracting or acknowledging my book!

LETTER 141. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (LORD AVEBURY). Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth, September 5th {1862}.

Many thanks for your pleasant note in return for all my stupid trouble. I did not fully appreciate your insect-diving case (141/1. "On two Aquatic Hymenoptera, one of which uses its Wings in Swimming." By John Lubbock. "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., 1864, pages 135-42.) {Read May 7th, 1863.} In this paper Lubbock describes a new species of Polynema—P. natans—which swims by means of its wings, and is capable of living under water for several hours; the other species, referred to a new genus Prestwichia, lives under water, holds its wings motionless and uses its legs as oars.) before your last note, nor had I any idea that the fact was new, though new to me. It is really very interesting. Of course you will publish an account of it. You will then say whether the insect can fly well through the air. (141/2. In describing the habits of Polynema, Lubbock writes, "I was unfortunately unable to ascertain whether they could fly" (loc. cit., page 137).) My wife asked, "How did he find that it stayed four hours under water without breathing?" I answered at once: "Mrs. Lubbock sat four hours watching." I wonder whether I am right.

Thank you so much for your nice note in response to all my silly troubles. I didn’t fully appreciate your insect-diving case (141/1. "On two Aquatic Hymenoptera, one of which uses its Wings in Swimming." By John Lubbock. "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., 1864, pages 135-42.) {Read May 7th, 1863.} In this paper, Lubbock describes a new species of Polynema—P. natans—which swims using its wings and can stay underwater for several hours; the other species, belonging to a new genus Prestwichia, lives underwater, keeps its wings still, and uses its legs like oars.) before your last note, and I had no idea this fact was new, though it was new to me. It’s really fascinating. Of course, you’re going to publish an account of it. You’ll then let us know if the insect can fly well through the air. (141/2. In describing the habits of Polynema, Lubbock writes, "I was unfortunately unable to ascertain whether they could fly" (loc. cit., page 137).) My wife asked, "How did he find out it stayed four hours underwater without breathing?" I immediately responded: "Mrs. Lubbock watched for four hours." I wonder if I’m right.

I long to be at home and at steady work, and I hope we may be in another month. I fear it is hopeless my coming to you, for I am squashier than ever, but hope two shower-baths a day will give me a little strength, so that you will, I hope, come to us. It is an age since I have seen you or any scientific friend.

I really want to be at home and settled into a routine, and I hope we can be in another month. I’m afraid it's unlikely that I can visit you, as I'm feeling weaker than ever, but I'm hoping that taking two showers a day will provide me with some strength, so that you will, I hope, come to us. It feels like forever since I've seen you or any of my science friends.

I heard from Lyell the other day in the Isle of Wight, and from Hooker in Scotland. About Huxley I know nothing, but I hope his book progresses, for I shall be very curious to see it. (141/3. "Man's Place in Nature." London, 1863.)

I heard from Lyell the other day in the Isle of Wight and from Hooker in Scotland. I don’t know anything about Huxley, but I hope his book is coming along, because I’m really curious to see it. (141/3. "Man's Place in Nature." London, 1863.)

I do nothing here except occasionally look at a few flowers, and there are very few here, for the country is wonderfully barren.

I do nothing here except sometimes look at a few flowers, and there are very few because the land is incredibly barren.

See what it is to be well trained. Horace said to me yesterday, "If every one would kill adders they would come to sting less." I answered: "Of course they would, for there would be fewer." He replied indignantly: "I did not mean that; but the timid adders which run away would be saved, and in time would never sting at all." Natural selection of cowards!

See what it means to be well-trained. Horace told me yesterday, "If everyone killed snakes, they'd sting less." I replied, "Of course they would, because there would be fewer of them." He responded, annoyed: "That's not what I meant; the timid snakes that run away would survive, and eventually, they wouldn't sting at all." Natural selection of cowards!

LETTER 142. H. FALCONER TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(142/1. This refers to the MS. of Falconer's paper "On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.)," published in the "Natural History Review," January, 1863, page 43. The section dealing with the bearing of his facts on Darwin's views is at page 77. He insists strongly (page 78) on the "persistence and uniformity of the characters of the molar teeth in the earliest known mammoth, and his most modern successor." Nevertheless, he adds that the "inferences I draw from these facts are not opposed to one of the leading propositions of Darwin's theory." These admissions were the more satisfactory since, as Falconer points out (page 77), "I have been included by him in the category of those who have vehemently maintained the persistence of specific characters.")

(142/1. This refers to the manuscript of Falconer's paper "On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.)," published in the "Natural History Review," January 1863, page 43. The section discussing how his findings relate to Darwin's views is on page 77. He strongly emphasizes (page 78) the "persistence and uniformity of the characters of the molar teeth in the earliest known mammoth and its most modern successor." However, he adds that the "conclusions I draw from these facts do not contradict one of the main propositions of Darwin's theory." These acknowledgments were particularly encouraging since, as Falconer points out (page 77), "I have been included by him in the category of those who have strongly argued for the persistence of specific characters.")

21, Park Crescent, Portland Place, N.W., September 24th {1862}.

21, Park Crescent, Portland Place, N.W., September 24th, 1862.

Do not be frightened at the enclosure. I wish to set myself right by you before I go to press. I am bringing out a heavy memoir on elephants—an omnium gatherum affair, with observations on the fossil and recent species. One section is devoted to the persistence in time of the specific characters of the mammoth. I trace him from before the Glacial period, through it and after it, unchangeable and unchanged as far as the organs of digestion (teeth) and locomotion are concerned. Now, the Glacial period was no joke: it would have made ducks and drakes of your dear pigeons and doves.

Don't be scared by the enclosure. I want to clarify things with you before I go to print. I'm releasing a detailed memoir on elephants—an all-encompassing work, with insights on both fossilized and recent species. One section focuses on the enduring characteristics of the mammoth over time. I follow its existence from before the Ice Age, through it, and afterwards, untouched and unchanging in terms of its digestive and locomotion organs (teeth). Now, the Ice Age was serious: it would have wreaked havoc on your beloved pigeons and doves.

With all my shortcomings, I have such a sincere and affectionate regard for you and such admiration of your work, that I should be pained to find that I had expressed my honest convictions in a way that would be open to any objection by you. The reasoning may be very stupid, but I believe that the observation is sound. Will you, therefore, look over the few pages which I have sent, and tell me whether you find any flaw, or whether you think I should change the form of expression? You have been so unhandsomely and uncandidly dealt with by a friend of yours and mine that I should be sorry to find myself in the position of an opponent to you, and more particularly with the chance of making a fool of myself.

Despite my flaws, I have a genuinely warm and caring regard for you and deeply admire your work. It would hurt me to think that I expressed my honest opinions in a way that you might find objectionable. My reasoning may not be the best, but I believe my observation is accurate. So, could you please take a look at the few pages I’ve sent and let me know if you see any issues, or if you think I should change how I’ve expressed myself? You’ve been treated poorly and unfairly by a mutual friend, and I would hate to find myself opposing you, especially with the possibility of embarrassing myself.

I met your brother yesterday, who tells me you are coming to town. I hope you will give me a hail. I long for a jaw with you, and have much to speak to you about.

I met your brother yesterday, and he mentioned you’re coming to town. I hope you’ll drop me a line. I’m eager to chat with you and have a lot to talk about.

You will have seen the eclaircissement about the Eocene monkeys of England. By a touch of the conjuring wand they have been metamorphosed—a la Darwin—into Hyracotherian pigs. (142/2. "On the Hyracotherian Character of the Lower Molars of the supposed Macacus from the Eocene Sand of Kyson, Suffolk." "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume X., 1862, page 240. In this note Owen stated that the teeth which he had named Macacus ("Ann. Mag." 1840, page 191) most probably belonged to Hyracotherium cuniculus. See "A Catalogue of British Fossil Vertebrata," A.S. Woodward and C.D. Sherborn, 1890, under Hyracotherium, page 356; also Zittel's "Handbuch der Palaeontologie" Abth. I., Bd. IV., Leipzig, 1891-93, page 703.) Would you believe it? This even is a gross blunder. They are not pigs.

You’ve probably seen the clarification about the Eocene monkeys in England. With a wave of a magic wand, they’ve been transformed—like Darwin suggested—into Hyracotherian pigs. (142/2. "On the Hyracotherian Character of the Lower Molars of the supposed Macacus from the Eocene Sand of Kyson, Suffolk." "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume X., 1862, page 240. In this note, Owen stated that the teeth he had labeled Macacus ("Ann. Mag." 1840, page 191) likely belonged to Hyracotherium cuniculus. See "A Catalogue of British Fossil Vertebrata," A.S. Woodward and C.D. Sherborn, 1890, under Hyracotherium, page 356; also Zittel's "Handbuch der Palaeontologie" Abth. I., Bd. IV., Leipzig, 1891-93, page 703.) Can you believe it? This is a huge mistake. They’re not pigs.

LETTER 143. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, October 1st {1862}.

On my return home yesterday I found your letter and MS., which I have read with extreme interest. Your note and every word in your paper are expressed with the same kind feeling which I have experienced from you ever since I have had the happiness of knowing you. I value scientific praise, but I value incomparably higher such kind feeling as yours. There is not a single word in your paper to which I could possibly object: I should be mad to do so; its only fault is perhaps its too great kindness. Your case seems the most striking one which I have met with of the persistence of specific characters. It is very much the more striking as it relates to the molar teeth, which differ so much in the species of the genus, and in which consequently I should have expected variation. As I read on I felt not a little dumbfounded, and thought to myself that whenever I came to this subject I should have to be savage against myself; and I wondered how savage you would be. I trembled a little. My only hope was that something could be made out of the bog N. American forms, which you rank as a geographical race; and possibly hereafter out of the Sicilian species. Guess, then, my satisfaction when I found that you yourself made a loophole (143/1. This perhaps refers to a passage ("N.H. Review," 1863, page 79) in which Falconer allows the existence of intermediate forms along certain possible lines of descent. Falconer's reference to the Sicilian elephants is in a note on page 78; the bog-elephant is mentioned on page 79.), which I never, of course, could have guessed at; and imagine my still greater satisfaction at your expressing yourself as an unbeliever in the eternal immutability of species. Your final remarks on my work are too generous, but have given me not a little pleasure. As for criticisms, I have only small ones. When you speak of "moderate range of variation" I cannot but think that you ought to remind your readers (though I daresay previously done) what the amount is, including the case of the American bog-mammoth. You speak of these animals as having been exposed to a vast range of climatal changes from before to after the Glacial period. I should have thought, from analogy of sea-shells, that by migration (or local extinction when migration not possible) these animals might and would have kept under nearly the same climate.

On my way home yesterday, I found your letter and manuscript, which I read with great interest. Your note and every word in your paper reflect the same kind feelings I've experienced from you ever since I've had the pleasure of knowing you. While I appreciate scientific praise, I value your kindness even more. There isn't a single word in your paper I could possibly disagree with; it would be unreasonable to do so. Its only flaw may be its excessive kindness. Your case is the most striking example I've encountered of the persistence of specific characteristics. It's particularly striking because it pertains to the molar teeth, which vary considerably among species within the genus, and I would have expected some variation here. As I read on, I was quite taken aback and thought to myself that whenever I approached this topic, I would have to be hard on myself; I wondered how tough you would be on me. I felt a bit anxious. My only hope was that something could be deduced from the bog N. American forms, which you classify as a geographical race, and possibly later from the Sicilian species. Imagine my satisfaction when I found that you provided an insight (143/1. This perhaps refers to a passage ("N.H. Review," 1863, page 79) in which Falconer allows the existence of intermediate forms along certain possible lines of descent. Falconer's reference to the Sicilian elephants is in a note on page 78; the bog-elephant is mentioned on page 79.) that I could never have anticipated, and even more satisfaction that you expressed skepticism about the eternal immutability of species. Your final comments on my work are overly generous, but they brought me considerable joy. As for criticisms, I only have minor ones. When you mention "moderate range of variation," I think you should remind your readers (though I assume you've done so before) what that amount entails, including the case of the American bog-mammoth. You mention that these animals were subjected to a significant range of climatic changes from before to after the Glacial period. I would have thought, based on the analogy of sea shells, that through migration (or local extinction when migration wasn't possible), these animals would have remained under nearly the same climate.

A rather more important consideration, as it seems to me, is that the whole proboscidean group may, I presume, be looked at as verging towards extinction: anyhow, the extinction has been complete as far as Europe and America are concerned. Numerous considerations and facts have led me in the "Origin" to conclude that it is the flourishing or dominant members of each order which generally give rise to new races, sub-species, and species; and under this point of view I am not at all surprised at the constancy of your species. This leads me to remark that the sentence at the bottom of page {80} is not applicable to my views (143/2. See Falconer at the bottom of page 80: it is the old difficulty—how can variability co-exist with persistence of type? In our copy of the letter the passage is given as occurring on page 60, a slip of the pen for page 80.), though quite applicable to those who attribute modification to the direct action of the conditions of life. An elephant might be more individually variable than any known quadruped (from the effects of the conditions of life or other innate unknown causes), but if these variations did not aid the animal in better resisting all hostile influences, and therefore making it increase in numbers, there would be no tendency to the preservation and accumulation of such variations—i.e. to the formation of a new race. As the proboscidean group seems to be from utterly unknown causes a failing group in many parts of the world, I should not have anticipated the formation of new races.

A more important consideration, it seems to me, is that the entire group of proboscideans might be heading towards extinction. In any case, they have completely disappeared from Europe and America. Various factors and evidence have led me in the "Origin" to conclude that it’s usually the thriving or dominant members of each order that give rise to new races, subspecies, and species; under this perspective, I'm not at all surprised by the stability of your species. This brings me to point out that the statement at the bottom of page {80} doesn’t align with my views (143/2. See Falconer at the bottom of page 80: it’s the same old issue—how can variability exist alongside stability of type? In our version of the letter, the passage appears on page 60, which is a typo for page 80.), though it does apply to those who think that changes come directly from environmental conditions. An elephant might show more individual variation than any known four-legged animal (due to the effects of life conditions or other unknown inherent causes), but if those variations didn’t help the animal resist hostile influences better and, therefore, increase its numbers, there would be no tendency to preserve and accumulate such variations—that is, no formation of a new race. Since the proboscidean group seems to be declining in many parts of the world due to completely unknown reasons, I wouldn’t have expected new races to form.

You make important remarks versus Natural Selection, and you will perhaps be surprised that I do to a large extent agree with you. I could show you many passages, written as strongly as I could in the "Origin," declaring that Natural Selection can do nothing without previous variability; and I have tried to put equally strongly that variability is governed by many laws, mostly quite unknown. My title deceives people, and I wish I had made it rather different. Your phyllotaxis (143/3. Falconer, page 80: "The law of Phyllotaxis...is nearly as constant in its manifestation as any of the physical laws connected with the material world.") will serve as example, for I quite agree that the spiral arrangement of a certain number of whorls of leaves (however that may have primordially arisen, and whether quite as invariable as you state), governs the limits of variability, and therefore governs what Natural Selection can do. Let me explain how it arose that I laid so much stress on Natural Selection, and I still think justly. I came to think from geographical distribution, etc., etc., that species probably change; but for years I was stopped dead by my utter incapability of seeing how every part of each creature (a woodpecker or swallow, for instance) had become adapted to its conditions of life. This seemed to me, and does still seem, the problem to solve; and I think Natural Selection solves it, as artificial selection solves the adaptation of domestic races for man's use. But I suspect that you mean something further,—that there is some unknown law of evolution by which species necessarily change; and if this be so, I cannot agree. This, however, is too large a question even for so unreasonably long a letter as this. Nevertheless, just to explain by mere valueless conjectures how I imagine the teeth of your elephants change, I should look at the change as indirectly resulting from changes in the form of the jaws, or from the development of tusks, or in the case of the primigenius even from correlation with the woolly covering; in all cases Natural Selection checking the variation. If, indeed, an elephant would succeed better by feeding on some new kinds of food, then any variation of any kind in the teeth which favoured their grinding power would be preserved. Now, I can fancy you holding up your hands and crying out what bosh! To return to your concluding sentence: far from being surprised, I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the "Origin" will be proved rubbish; but I expect and hope that the framework will stand. (143/4. Falconer, page 80: "He {Darwin} has laid the foundations of a great edifice: but he need not be surprised if, in the progress of erection, the superstructure is altered by his successors...")

You make important points about Natural Selection, and you might be surprised to hear that I mostly agree with you. I could show you many passages from the "Origin," written as strongly as I could, stating that Natural Selection can't operate without prior variability; and I've tried to emphasize that variability is influenced by many laws, most of which are still unknown. My title misleads people, and I wish I had chosen a different one. Your phyllotaxis (143/3. Falconer, page 80: "The law of Phyllotaxis...is nearly as constant in its manifestation as any of the physical laws connected with the material world.") serves as an example, as I fully agree that the spiral arrangement of a certain number of whorls of leaves (regardless of how that originated and whether it's as fixed as you say) sets the limits of variability, and thus determines what Natural Selection can achieve. Let me explain why I emphasized Natural Selection so much, and I still believe it was justified. I came to the conclusion from geographical distribution, etc., etc., that species probably change; but for years, I was completely stumped by my inability to see how every part of each creature (like a woodpecker or a swallow, for example) became suited to its living conditions. This has always seemed to me, and still does, to be the problem that needs solving; and I think Natural Selection addresses it, just as artificial selection addresses the adaptations of domestic breeds for human use. However, I suspect you mean something more—that there is some unknown law of evolution that causes species to change inevitably; and if that's the case, I can't agree. This, though, is too big a question even for such an unreasonably long letter as this one. Still, just to illustrate, through mere conjecture, how I think the teeth of your elephants change, I would consider the changes as indirectly stemming from alterations in the shape of the jaws, or from the development of tusks, or in the case of the mammoth, even due to correlation with its woolly covering; in all scenarios, Natural Selection would check the variation. If an elephant would indeed thrive better by eating new types of food, then any variation in the teeth that improves their grinding ability would be favored. Now, I can imagine you throwing your hands up and exclaiming how ridiculous that is! Returning to your final sentence: far from being surprised, I believe it's absolutely certain that much of what’s in the "Origin" will be proven nonsense; however, I expect and hope that the overall framework will hold up. (143/4. Falconer, page 80: "He {Darwin} has laid the foundations of a great edifice: but he need not be surprised if, in the progress of erection, the superstructure is altered by his successors...")

I had hoped to have called on you on Monday evening, but was quite knocked up. I saw Lyell yesterday morning. He was very curious about your views, and as I had to write to him this morning I could not help telling him a few words on your views. I suppose you are tired of the "Origin," and will never read it again; otherwise I should like you to have the third edition, and would gladly send it rather than you should look at the first or second edition. With cordial thanks for your generous kindness.

I had hoped to visit you on Monday evening, but I was completely worn out. I saw Lyell yesterday morning. He was really interested in your opinions, and since I had to write to him this morning, I couldn’t help but share a few of your thoughts. I guess you’re tired of the "Origin" and probably won’t read it again; otherwise, I’d love for you to have the third edition and would be happy to send it to you rather than have you look at the first or second editions. Thanks again for your generous kindness.

LETTER 144. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Royal Gardens, Kew, November 7th, 1862.

LETTER 144. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Royal Gardens, Kew, November 7, 1862.

I am greatly relieved by your letter this morning about my Arctic essay, for I had been conjuring up some egregious blunder (like the granitic plains of Patagonia).. Certes, after what you have told me of Dawson, he will not like the letter I wrote to him days ago, in which I told him that it was impossible to entertain a strong opinion against the Darwinian hypothesis without its giving rise to a mental twist when viewing matters in which that hypothesis was or might be involved. I told him I felt that this was so with me when I opposed you, and that all minds are subject to such obliquities!—the Lord help me, and this to an LL.D. and Principal of a College! I proceeded to discuss his Geology with the effrontery of a novice; and, thank God, I urged the very argument of your letter about evidence of subsidence—viz., not all submerged at once, and glacial action being subaerial and not oceanic. Your letter hence was a relief, for I felt I was hardly strong enough to have launched out as I did to a professed geologist.

I'm really relieved by your letter this morning about my Arctic essay, because I had been worrying about some huge mistake (like the rocky plains of Patagonia). Clearly, after what you told me about Dawson, he’s not going to like the letter I wrote to him a few days ago, where I mentioned that it’s impossible to have a strong opinion against Darwin’s theory without developing a mental block when considering issues related to that theory. I told him I felt that way when I disagreed with you, and that everyone’s mind can be affected by such biases!—God help me, and I said this to an LL.D. and Principal of a College! I went ahead and discussed his Geology with the boldness of a beginner; and, thank God, I even brought up the very argument from your letter about the evidence of subsidence—namely, that not everything was submerged at once, and that glacial action is land-based and not oceanic. Your letter was a relief because I felt I was barely brave enough to have gone as far as I did with a trained geologist.

(144/1. {On the subject of the above letter, see one of earlier date by Sir J.D. Hooker (November 2nd, 1862) given in the present work (Letter 354) with Darwin's reply (Letter 355).})

(144/1. {For more on the letter mentioned above, refer to an earlier one by Sir J.D. Hooker (November 2nd, 1862) included in this work (Letter 354) along with Darwin's response (Letter 355).})

LETTER 145. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 14th {1862}.

I have read your paper (145/1. "On the disputed Affinity of the Mammalian Genus Plagiaulax, from the Purbeck beds."—"Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page 348, 1862.) with extreme interest, and I thank you for sending it, though I should certainly have carefully read it, or anything with your name, in the Journal. It seems to me a masterpiece of close reasoning: although, of course, not a judge of such subjects, I cannot feel any doubt that it is conclusive. Will Owen answer you? I expect that from his arrogant view of his own position he will not answer. Your paper is dreadfully severe on him, but perfectly courteous, and polished as the finest dagger. How kind you are towards me: your first sentence (145/2. "One of the most accurate observers and original thinkers of our time has discoursed with emphatic eloquence on the Imperfection of the Geological Record.") has pleased me more than perhaps it ought to do, if I had any modesty in my composition. By the way, after reading the first whole paragraph, I re-read it, not for matter, but for style; and then it suddenly occurred to me that a certain man once said to me, when I urged him to publish some of his miscellaneous wealth of knowledge, "Oh, he could not write,—he hated it," etc. You false man, never say that to me again. Your incidental remark on the remarkable specialisation of Plagiaulax (145/3. "If Plagiaulax be regarded through the medium of the view advocated with such power by Darwin, through what a number of intermediate forms must not the genus have passed before it attained the specialised condition in which the fossils come before us!") (which has stuck in my gizzard ever since I read your first paper) as bearing on the number of preceding forms, is quite new to me, and, of course, is in accordance to my notions a most impressive argument. I was also glad to be reminded of teeth of camel and tarsal bones. (145/4. Op. cit. page 353. A reference to Cuvier's instance "of the secret relation between the upper canine-shaped incisors of the camel and the bones of the tarsus.") Descent from an intermediate form, Ahem!

I read your paper (145/1. "On the disputed Affinity of the Mammalian Genus Plagiaulax, from the Purbeck beds."—"Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page 348, 1862.) with great interest, and I appreciate you sending it. I would have definitely read it anyway, or anything with your name in the Journal. It seems to me a brilliant piece of reasoning: although I’m not an expert in this area, I have no doubt it’s conclusive. Will Owen respond to you? I suspect that due to his arrogant view of himself, he won’t. Your paper is extremely critical of him, but it’s also very courteous and as polished as the finest dagger. How kind you are towards me: your first sentence (145/2. "One of the most accurate observers and original thinkers of our time has discoursed with emphatic eloquence on the Imperfection of the Geological Record.") has pleased me more than it probably should, if I had any modesty in me. By the way, after reading the first entire paragraph, I went back and reread it, not for content, but for style; and then it suddenly hit me that a certain man once told me, when I urged him to publish some of his diverse knowledge, "Oh, he couldn’t write—he hated it," etc. You deceitful man, don’t ever say that to me again. Your comment about the remarkable specialization of Plagiaulax (145/3. "If Plagiaulax be regarded through the medium of the view advocated with such power by Darwin, through what a number of intermediate forms must not the genus have passed before it attained the specialised condition in which the fossils come before us!") (which has been in my mind ever since I read your first paper) regarding the number of preceding forms is completely new to me, and, of course, is in line with my thoughts a very impressive argument. I was also pleased to be reminded of the teeth of camels and tarsal bones. (145/4. Op. cit. page 353. A reference to Cuvier's instance "of the secret relation between the upper canine-shaped incisors of the camel and the bones of the tarsus.") Descent from an intermediate form, Ahem!

Well, all I can say is that I have not been for a long time more interested with a paper than with yours. It gives me a demoniacal chuckle to think of Owen's pleasant countenance when he reads it.

Well, all I can say is that I haven't been this interested in a paper for a long time as I am with yours. It gives me a wicked laugh to imagine Owen's friendly face when he reads it.

I have not been in London since the end of September; when I do come I will beat up your quarters if I possibly can; but I do not know what has come over me. I am worse than ever in bearing any excitement. Even talking of an evening for less than two hours has twice recently brought on such violent vomiting and trembling that I dread coming up to London. I hear that you came out strong at Cambridge (145/5. Prof. Owen, in a communication to the British Association at Cambridge (1862) "On a tooth of Mastodon from the Tertiary marls, near Shanghai," brought forward the case of the Australian Mastodon as a proof of the remarkable geographical distribution of the Proboscidia. In a subsequent discussion he frankly abandoned it, in consequence of the doubts then urged regarding its authenticity. (See footnote, page 101, in Falconer's paper "On the American Fossil Elephant," "Nat. Hist. Review," 1863.)), and am heartily glad you attacked the Australian Mastodon. I never did or could believe in him. I wish you would read my little Primula paper in the "Linnean Journal," Volume VI. Botany (No. 22), page 77 (I have no copy which I can spare), as I think there is a good chance that you may have observed similar cases. This is my real hobby-horse at present. I have re-tested this summer the functional difference of the two forms in Primula, and find all strictly accurate. If you should know of any cases analogous, pray inform me. Farewell, my good and kind friend.

I haven’t been in London since the end of September; when I do come, I’ll definitely visit your place if I can. But I don’t know what’s gotten into me. I’m worse than ever when it comes to handling excitement. Even talking about an evening for less than two hours has recently caused me such intense vomiting and shaking that I dread coming to London. I hear you made a strong impression at Cambridge, and I’m really glad you challenged the Australian Mastodon theory. I never believed in it. I wish you would read my little Primula paper in the "Linnean Journal," Volume VI. Botany (No. 22), page 77 (I don’t have an extra copy to spare), as I think there’s a good chance you may have noticed similar cases. This is my real passion at the moment. I re-tested the functional differences of the two forms in Primula this summer, and everything checks out perfectly. If you happen to know of any similar cases, please let me know. Take care, my good and kind friend.

LETTER 146. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(146/1. The following letter is interesting in connection with a letter addressed to Sir J.D. Hooker, March 26th, 1862, No. 136, where the value of Natural Selection is stated more strongly by Sir Joseph than by Darwin. It is unfortunate that Sir Joseph's letter, to which this is a reply, has not been found.)

(146/1. The following letter is interesting in connection with a letter addressed to Sir J.D. Hooker, March 26th, 1862, No. 136, where Sir Joseph emphasizes the value of Natural Selection more strongly than Darwin does. It’s unfortunate that Sir Joseph's letter, which this is responding to, has not been found.)

Down, November 20th {1862}.

Down, November 20, 1862.

Your last letter has interested me to an extraordinary degree, and your truly parsonic advice, "some other wise and discreet person," etc., etc., amused us not a little. I will put a concrete case to show what I think A. Gray believes about crossing and what I believe. If 1,000 pigeons were bred together in a cage for 10,000 years their number not being allowed to increase by chance killing, then from mutual intercrossing no varieties would arise; but, if each pigeon were a self-fertilising hermaphrodite, a multitude of varieties would arise. This, I believe, is the common effect of crossing, viz., the obliteration of incipient varieties. I do not deny that when two marked varieties have been produced, their crossing will produce a third or more intermediate varieties. Possibly, or probably, with domestic varieties, with a strong tendency to vary, the act of crossing tends to give rise to new characters; and thus a third or more races, not strictly intermediate, may be produced. But there is heavy evidence against new characters arising from crossing wild forms; only intermediate races are then produced. Now, do you agree thus far? if not, it is no use arguing; we must come to swearing, and I am convinced I can swear harder than you, therefore I am right. Q.E.D.

Your last letter really caught my attention, and your truly pastoral advice about "some other wise and discreet person," etc., really made us laugh. Let me give you a concrete example to illustrate what I think A. Gray believes about crossing and what I believe. If 1,000 pigeons were raised together in a cage for 10,000 years without their number increasing due to random deaths, then from interbreeding, no new varieties would appear. However, if each pigeon were a self-fertilizing hermaphrodite, a lot of different varieties would emerge. I believe this is the usual result of crossing, which is the elimination of early-stage varieties. I don’t deny that when two distinct varieties are produced, their crossing can create a third or more intermediate varieties. It's possible, or even likely, that with domestic varieties, which tend to vary a lot, the act of crossing can lead to new traits; this way, a third or more breeds, not strictly intermediate, might come about. But there's strong evidence against new traits developing from crossing wild forms; only intermediate races are produced in that case. So, do you agree so far? If not, there’s no point in arguing; we’d have to resort to swearing, and I’m pretty sure I can swear better than you, so I must be right. Q.E.D.

If the number of 1,000 pigeons were prevented increasing not by chance killing, but by, say, all the shorter-beaked birds being killed, then the WHOLE body would come to have longer beaks. Do you agree?

If the number of 1,000 pigeons didn’t stop increasing because of random deaths, but rather because all the birds with shorter beaks were killed, then the entire population would develop longer beaks. Do you agree?

Thirdly, if 1,000 pigeons were kept in a hot country, and another 1,000 in a cold country, and fed on different food, and confined in different-size aviary, and kept constant in number by chance killing, then I should expect as rather probable that after 10,000 years the two bodies would differ slightly in size, colour, and perhaps other trifling characters; this I should call the direct action of physical conditions. By this action I wish to imply that the innate vital forces are somehow led to act rather differently in the two cases, just as heat will allow or cause two elements to combine, which otherwise would not have combined. I should be especially obliged if you would tell me what you think on this head.

Thirdly, if 1,000 pigeons were kept in a hot country and another 1,000 in a cold country, and were fed different diets, confined in aviaries of different sizes, and maintained at a constant number through random killings, then I would expect it to be quite probable that after 10,000 years the two groups would show slight differences in size, color, and maybe other minor traits; I would refer to this as the direct impact of physical conditions. By this action, I mean that the inherent vital forces might be influenced to act somewhat differently in each situation, similar to how heat can enable or cause two elements to combine that otherwise wouldn’t. I would really appreciate it if you could share your thoughts on this matter.

But the part of your letter which fairly pitched me head over heels with astonishment, is that where you state that every single difference which we see might have occurred without any selection. I do and have always fully agreed; but you have got right round the subject, and viewed it from an entirely opposite and new side, and when you took me there I was astounded. When I say I agree, I must make the proviso, that under your view, as now, each form long remains adapted to certain fixed conditions, and that the conditions of life are in the long run changeable; and second, which is more important, that each individual form is a self-fertilising hermaphrodite, so that each hair-breadth variation is not lost by intercrossing. Your manner of putting the case would be even more striking than it is if the mind could grapple with such numbers—it is grappling with eternity—think of each of a thousand seeds bringing forth its plant, and then each a thousand. A globe stretching to the furthest fixed star would very soon be covered. I cannot even grapple with the idea, even with races of dogs, cattle, pigeons, or fowls; and here all admit and see the accurate strictness of your illustration.

But what really knocked me off my feet with surprise in your letter is when you mentioned that every single difference we observe could have arisen without any selection. I completely agree with that; however, you’ve approached the topic from a totally different, fresh perspective, and I was amazed when you took me there. When I say I agree, I have to add that according to your viewpoint, each form remains well-suited to certain fixed conditions for a long time, and those life conditions are ultimately changeable. Also, more importantly, each individual form is capable of self-fertilization, so that every tiny variation isn’t lost through interbreeding. The way you presented the case would be even more impressive if the human mind could handle such vast numbers—it’s like trying to comprehend eternity—imagine each of a thousand seeds growing into its own plant, and then each of those producing a thousand more. A globe extending to the farthest fixed star would soon be covered. I can’t even wrap my head around that idea, even with dog breeds, cattle, pigeons, or chickens; yet, here, everyone acknowledges and sees the precise accuracy of your illustration.

Such men as you and Lyell thinking that I make too much of a Deus of Natural Selection is a conclusive argument against me. Yet I hardly know how I could have put in, in all parts of my book, stronger sentences. The title, as you once pointed out, might have been better. No one ever objects to agriculturalists using the strongest language about their selection, yet every breeder knows that he does not produce the modification which he selects. My enormous difficulty for years was to understand adaptation, and this made me, I cannot but think, rightly, insist so much on Natural Selection. God forgive me for writing at such length; but you cannot tell how much your letter has interested me, and how important it is for me with my present book in hand to try and get clear ideas. Do think a bit about what is meant by direct action of physical conditions. I do not mean whether they act; my facts will throw some light on this. I am collecting all cases of bud-variations, in contradistinction to seed-variations (do you like this term, for what some gardeners call "sports"?); these eliminate all effects of crossing. Pray remember how much I value your opinion as the clearest and most original I ever get.

Men like you and Lyell believe I put too much emphasis on a god-like force of Natural Selection, which is a solid argument against me. Still, I'm not sure how I could have used stronger statements throughout my book. As you once pointed out, the title could have been better. No one criticizes farmers for using strong language about their selection, yet every breeder knows that they don't create the variations they select. For years, my biggest struggle has been to understand adaptation, which is why I feel justified in stressing Natural Selection. I apologize for writing so much, but you have no idea how much your letter has fascinated me and how crucial it is for me to clarify my thoughts with my current book in progress. Please think a bit about what is meant by the direct action of physical conditions. I'm not questioning whether they have an effect; my data will shed some light on this. I'm gathering all cases of bud variations, as opposed to seed variations (do you like this term for what some gardeners call "sports"?); these help eliminate any effects of crossing. Please remember how much I value your opinion; it's the clearest and most original feedback I receive.

I see plainly that Welwitschia (146/2. Sir Joseph's great paper on Welwitschia mirabilis was published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." 1863.) will be a case of Barnacles.

I clearly see that Welwitschia (146/2. Sir Joseph's extensive paper on Welwitschia mirabilis was published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." 1863.) will be a case of Barnacles.

I have another plant to beg, but I write on separate paper as more convenient for you to keep. I meant to have said before, as an excuse for asking for so much from Kew, that I have now lost TWO seasons, by accursed nurserymen not having right plants, and sending me the wrong instead of saying that they did not possess.

I have another request for a plant, but I’m writing on a separate piece of paper since it’s easier for you to keep. I should have mentioned earlier, as a reason for asking so much from Kew, that I’ve now lost TWO seasons due to those frustrating nurserymen who don’t have the right plants and send me the wrong ones instead of just saying they don’t have them.

LETTER 147. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 24th {November, 1862}.

LETTER 147. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 24, 1862.

I have just received enclosed for you, and I have thought that you would like to read the latter half of A. Gray's letter to me, as it is political and nearly as mad as ever in our English eyes. You will see how the loss of the power of bullying is in fact the sore loss to the men of the North from disunion.

I just got something to send you, and I thought you'd want to read the second half of A. Gray's letter to me since it’s political and just as crazy as ever from our English perspective. You'll see that the loss of the ability to bully is actually a significant loss for the men in the North because of disunion.

I return with thanks Bates' letter, which I was glad to see. It was very good of you writing to him, for he is evidently a man who wants encouragement. I have now finished his paper (but have read nothing else in the volume); it seems to me admirable. To my mind the act of segregation of varieties into species was never so plainly brought forward, and there are heaps of capital miscellaneous observations.

I appreciate Bates' letter, which I was happy to read. It was really kind of you to write to him, as he clearly needs encouragement. I've finished his paper (though I haven’t read anything else in the volume); I think it's excellent. The way he explains the separation of varieties into species has never been clearer, and there are plenty of great miscellaneous observations.

I hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present work is leading me to believe rather more in the direct action of physical conditions. I presume I regret it, because it lessens the glory of Natural Selection, and is so confoundedly doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get all my facts under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this will be. (147/1. This paragraph was published in "Life and Letters," II., page 390. It is not clear why a belief in "direct action" should diminish the glory of Natural Selection, since the changes so produced must, like any other variations, pass through the ordeal of the survival of the fittest. On the whole question of direct action see Mr. Adam Sedgwick's "Presidential Address to the Zoological Section of the British Association," 1899.)

I’m not sure why I feel a bit sorry, but my current work is making me believe more in the immediate influence of physical conditions. I guess I regret this because it takes away from the brilliance of Natural Selection and is really quite uncertain. Maybe my perspective will change again when I manage to view all my facts from one angle, which will be quite a challenging task. (147/1. This paragraph was published in "Life and Letters," II., page 390. It’s not clear why believing in "direct action" should take away from the brilliance of Natural Selection since the changes it produces, like any other variations, must still go through the survival of the fittest. For the broader topic of direct action, see Mr. Adam Sedgwick's "Presidential Address to the Zoological Section of the British Association," 1899.)

LETTER 148. TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 25th {1862?}.

I should think it was not necessary to get a written agreement. (148/1. Mr. Bates' book, "A Naturalist on the Amazons," was published in 1863.) I have never had one from Murray. I suppose you have a letter with terms; if not, I should think you had better ask for one to prevent misunderstandings. I think Sir C. Lyell told me he had not any formal agreements. I am heartily glad to hear that your book is progressing. Could you find me some place, even a footnote (though these are in nine cases out of ten objectionable), where you could state, as fully as your materials permit, all the facts about similar varieties pairing,—at a guess how many you caught, and how many now in your collection? I look at this fact as very important; if not in your book, put it somewhere else, or let me have cases.

I don't think it was necessary to get a written agreement. (148/1. Mr. Bates' book, "A Naturalist on the Amazons," was published in 1863.) I've never had one from Murray. I assume you have a letter outlining the terms; if not, you should probably ask for one to avoid any misunderstandings. I believe Sir C. Lyell mentioned he didn't have any formal agreements either. I'm really glad to hear that your book is coming along. Could you find a spot for me, even a footnote (though those are usually not ideal), where you could share, as thoroughly as your materials allow, all the facts about similar varieties pairing—how many you caught and how many you currently have in your collection? I see this information as very important; if you can't include it in your book, find another place for it, or let me know the details.

I entirely agree with you on the enormous advantage of thoroughly studying one group.

I completely agree with you about the huge benefit of fully studying one group.

I really have no criticism to make. (148/2. Mr. Bates' paper on mimetic butterflies was read before the Linnean Society, November 21st, 1861, and published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIII., 1862, page 495, under the title of "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley.") Style seems to me very good and clear; but I much regret that in the title or opening passage you did not blow a loud trumpet about what you were going to show. Perhaps the paper would have been better more divided into sections with headings. Perhaps you might have given somewhere rather more of a summary on the progress of segregation of varieties, and not referred your readers to the descriptive part, excepting such readers as wanted minute detail. But these are trifles: I consider your paper as a most admirable production in every way. Whenever I come to variation under natural conditions (my head for months has been exclusively occupied with domestic varieties), I shall have to study and re-study your paper, and no doubt shall then have to plague you with questions. I am heartily glad to hear that you are well. I have been compelled to write in a hurry; so excuse me.

I really have no criticisms to make. (148/2. Mr. Bates' paper on mimetic butterflies was presented to the Linnean Society on November 21st, 1861, and published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIII., 1862, page 495, under the title "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley.") The style seems very good and clear to me; however, I really wish that in the title or opening section you had drawn more attention to what you were going to show. Maybe the paper would have been better if it had been more divided into sections with headings. You might have included a more detailed summary of the progress of segregation of varieties, and only directed readers to the descriptive part if they wanted fine details. But these are minor points: I consider your paper an outstanding work in every way. Whenever I get to the topic of variation under natural conditions (my head has been focused exclusively on domestic varieties for months), I will have to study and re-study your paper, and I’m sure I will then have to bother you with questions. I'm really glad to hear that you are well. I had to write this in a hurry, so please excuse me.

LETTER 149. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 7th {1862}.

I was on the point of adding to an order to Williams & Norgate for your Lectures (149/1. "A Course of Six Lectures to Working Men," published in six pamphlets by Hardwicke, and later as a book. See Letter 156.) when they arrived, and much obliged I am. I have read them with interest, and they seem to me very good for this purpose and capitally written, as is everything which you write. I suppose every book nowadays requires some pushing, so that if you do not wish these lectures to be extensively circulated, I suppose they will not; otherwise I should think they would do good and spread a taste for the natural sciences. Anyhow, I have liked them; but I get more and more, I am sorry to say, to care for nothing but Natural History; and chiefly, as you once said, for the mere species question. I think I liked No. III. the best of all. I have often said and thought that the process of scientific discovery was identical with everyday thought, only with more care; but I never succeeded in putting the case to myself with one-tenth of the clearness with which you have done. I think your second geological section will puzzle your non-scientific readers; anyhow, it has puzzled me, and with the strong middle line, which must represent either a line of stratification or some great mineralogical change, I cannot conceive how your statement can hold good.

I was about to place another order with Williams & Norgate for your Lectures (149/1. "A Course of Six Lectures to Working Men," published in six pamphlets by Hardwicke, and later as a book. See Letter 156.) when they arrived, and I'm really grateful. I read them with interest, and they seem great for this purpose and very well written, just like everything you write. I assume every book nowadays needs some promotion, so if you don't want these lectures to be widely circulated, then I guess they won't be; otherwise, I think they could do a lot of good and help people appreciate the natural sciences. Anyway, I enjoyed them; but I’m increasingly, unfortunately, only interested in Natural History; specifically, as you once mentioned, the species question. I think I liked No. III the most. I’ve often said and thought that the process of scientific discovery is the same as everyday thinking, just with more precision; but I never managed to express it to myself with even a fraction of the clarity that you have. I think your second geological section will confuse your non-scientific readers; at least it has confused me, and with the prominent middle line, which must represent either a line of stratification or some major mineralogical change, I can’t understand how your statement can be accurate.

I am very glad to hear of your "three-year-old" vigour {?}; but I fear, with all your multifarious work, that your book on Man will necessarily be delayed. You bad man; you say not a word about Mrs. Huxley, of whom my wife and self are always truly anxious to hear.

I’m really happy to hear about your "three-year-old" energy {?}; but I worry that with all your various projects, your book on Man will inevitably be delayed. You mischievous person; you don’t mention Mrs. Huxley at all, and my wife and I are always eager to hear about her.

P.S. I see in the "Cornhill Magazine" a notice of a work by Cohn, which apparently is important, on the contractile tissue of plants. (149/2. "Ueber contractile Gewebe im Pflanzenreiche." "Abhand. der Schlesischen Gesellschaft fur vaterlandische Cultur," Heft I., 1861.) You ought to have it reviewed. I have ordered it, and must try and make out, if I can, some of the accursed german, for I am much interested in the subject, and experimented a little on it this summer, and came to the conclusion that plants must contain some substance most closely analogous to the supposed diffused nervous matter in the lower animals; or as, I presume, it would be more accurate to say with Cohn, that they have contractile tissue.

P.S. I saw a notice in the "Cornhill Magazine" about an important work by Cohn on the contractile tissue of plants. (149/2. "Ueber contractile Gewebe im Pflanzenreiche." "Abhand. der Schlesischen Gesellschaft fur vaterlandische Cultur," Heft I., 1861.) You should get it reviewed. I've ordered it and will try to decipher some of the difficult German because I'm really interested in the topic. I experimented a bit with it this summer and concluded that plants must have some substance that’s very similar to the supposed diffuse nervous matter in lower animals; or, as Cohn would probably say, they have contractile tissue.

Lecture VI., page 151, line 7 from top—wetting FEET or bodies? (Miss Henrietta Darwin's criticism.) (149/3. Lecture VI., page 151: Lamarck "said, for example, that the short-legged birds, which live on fish, had been converted into the long-legged waders by desiring to get the fish without wetting their feet."

Lecture VI., page 151, line 7 from top—wetting FEET or bodies? (Miss Henrietta Darwin's criticism.) (149/3. Lecture VI., page 151: Lamarck "said, for example, that the short-legged birds, which live on fish, had been transformed into the long-legged waders by wanting to catch the fish without getting their feet wet."

Their criticisms on Lectures IV. and VI. are on a separate piece of undated paper, and must belong to a letter of later date; only three lectures were published by December 7th, 1862.)

Their critiques of Lectures IV and VI are on a separate undated paper and must belong to a later letter; only three lectures were published by December 7, 1862.

Lecture IV., page 89—Atavism.

Lecture IV, page 89—Atavism.

You here and there use atavism = inheritance. Duchesne, who, I believe, invented the word, in his Strawberry book confined it, as every one has since done, to resemblance to grandfather or more remote ancestor, in contradistinction to resemblance to parents.

You sometimes use atavism to mean inheritance. Duchesne, who I think coined the term, in his Strawberry book limited it, as everyone has since, to the resemblance to a grandfather or more distant ancestor, as opposed to resemblance to parents.

LETTER 150. TO JOHN SCOTT.

(150/1. The following is the first of a series of letters addressed to the late John Scott, of which the major part is given in our Botanical chapters. We have been tempted to give this correspondence fully not only because of its intrinsic scientific interest, but also because they are almost the only letters which show Darwin in personal relation with a younger man engaged in research under his supervision.)

(150/1. The following is the first in a series of letters written to the late John Scott, most of which are included in our Botanical chapters. We felt compelled to present this correspondence in full not only because of its inherent scientific significance but also because these are nearly the only letters that illustrate Darwin in a personal relationship with a younger man conducting research under his guidance.)

{1862?}

To the best of my judgment, no subject is so important in relation to theoretical natural science, in several respects, and likewise in itself deserving investigation, as the effects of changed or unnatural conditions, or of changed structure on the reproductive system. Under this point of view the relation of well-marked but undoubted varieties in fertilising each other requires far more experiments than have been tried. See in the "Origin" the brief abstract of Gartner on Verbascum and Zea. Mr. W. Crocker, lately foreman at Kew and a very good observer, is going at my suggestion to work varieties of hollyhock. (150/2. Altheae species. These experiments seem not to have been carried out.) The climate would be too cold, I suppose, for varieties of tobacco. I began on cabbages, but immediately stopped from early shedding of their pollen causing too much trouble. Your knowledge would suggest some {plants}. On the same principle it would be well to test peloric flowers with their own pollen, and with pollen of regular flowers, and try pollen of peloric on regular flowers—seeds being counted in each case. I have now got one seedling from many crosses of a peloric Pelargonium by peloric pollen; I have two or three seedlings from a peloric flower by pollen of regular flower. I have ordered a peloric Antirrhinum (150/3. See "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page 70.) and the peloric Gloxinia, but I much fear I shall never have time to try them. The Passiflora cases are truly wonderful, like the Crinum cases (see "Origin"). (150/4. "Origin," Edition VI., page 238.) I have read in a German paper that some varieties of potatoes (name not given) cannot be fertilised by {their} own pollen, but can by pollen of other varieties: well worth trying. Again, fertility of any monster flower, which is pretty regularly produced; I have got the wonderful Begonia frigida (150/5. The species on which Sir J.D. Hooker wrote in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," February 25th, 1860. See "Life and Letters," II., page 275.) from Kew, but doubt whether I have heat to set its seeds. If an unmodified Celosia could be got, it would be well to test with the modified cockscomb. There is a variation of columbine {Aquilegia} with simple petals without nectaries, etc., etc. I never could think what to try; but if one could get hold of a long-cultivated plant which crossed with a distinct species and yielded a very small number of seeds, then it would be highly good to test comparatively the wild parent-form and its varying offspring with this third species: for instance, if a polyanthus would cross with some species of Primula, then to try a wild cowslip with it. I believe hardly any primulas have ever been crossed. If we knew and could get the parent of the carnation (150/6. Dianthus caryophyllus, garden variety.), it would be very good for this end. Any member of the Lythraceae raised from seed ought to be well looked after for dimorphism. I have wonderful facts, the result of experiment, on Lythrum salicaria.

To the best of my judgment, no topic is as critical in relation to theoretical natural science in several ways, and also inherently worthy of investigation, as the effects of altered or unnatural conditions, or changed structures on the reproductive system. From this perspective, the interaction of well-defined but undeniable varieties fertilizing each other requires significantly more experiments than have been conducted. See in the "Origin" the brief summary from Gartner on Verbascum and Zea. Mr. W. Crocker, who recently served as foreman at Kew and is a keen observer, is, at my suggestion, going to work on varieties of hollyhock. (150/2. Altheae species. These experiments seem not to have been carried out.) I assume the climate would be too cold for varieties of tobacco. I began with cabbages but quickly stopped because their pollen sheds too early, creating too much hassle. Your knowledge would suggest some {plants}. Following the same logic, it would be beneficial to test peloric flowers with their own pollen, with pollen from regular flowers, and to see how peloric pollen does on regular flowers—counting seeds in each case. I now have one seedling from many crosses of a peloric Pelargonium using peloric pollen; and I have two or three seedlings from a peloric flower using pollen from a regular flower. I've ordered a peloric Antirrhinum (150/3. See "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page 70.) and the peloric Gloxinia, but I seriously doubt I’ll have the time to experiment with them. The cases of Passiflora are truly impressive, similar to the Crinum cases (see "Origin"). (150/4. "Origin," Edition VI., page 238.) I read in a German paper that some varieties of potatoes (name not specified) cannot be fertilized by {their} own pollen but can by the pollen of other varieties: definitely worth testing. Furthermore, the fertility of any monster flower, which is frequently produced; I’ve obtained the remarkable Begonia frigida (150/5. The species on which Sir J.D. Hooker wrote in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," February 25th, 1860. See "Life and Letters," II., page 275.) from Kew, but I worry whether I have the warmth to set its seeds. If an unmodified Celosia could be obtained, it would be wise to test it with the modified cockscomb. There’s a variation of columbine {Aquilegia} with simple petals and without nectaries, etc., etc. I’ve always struggled to decide what to test; however, if one could obtain a long-cultivated plant that crossed with a different species and produced a very limited number of seeds, then it would be extremely beneficial to compare the wild parent form and its varying offspring with this third species: for example, if a polyanthus were to cross with some species of Primula, then to try a wild cowslip with it. I believe hardly any primulas have ever been crossed. If we knew and could acquire the parent of the carnation (150/6. Dianthus caryophyllus, garden variety.), it would serve well for this purpose. Any member of the Lythraceae grown from seed should be closely monitored for dimorphism. I have incredible findings from experiments on Lythrum salicaria.

LETTER 151. TO JOHN SCOTT. Down, December 11th {1862}.

I have read your paper with much interest. (151/1. "On the Nature and Peculiarities of the Fern-spore." "Bot. Soc. Edin." Read June 12th, 1862.) You ask for remarks on the matter, which is alone really important. Shall you think me impertinent (I am sure I do not mean to be so) if I hazard a remark on the style, which is of more importance than some think? In my opinion (whether or no worth much) your paper would have been much better if written more simply and less elaborated—more like your letters. It is a golden rule always to use, if possible, a short old Saxon word. Such a sentence as "so purely dependent is the incipient plant on the specific morphological tendency" does not sound to my ears like good mother-English—it wants translating. Here and there you might, I think, have condensed some sentences. I go on the plan of thinking every single word which can be omitted without actual loss of sense as a decided gain. Now perhaps you will think me a meddling intruder: anyhow, it is the advice of an old hackneyed writer who sincerely wishes you well. Your remark on the two sexes counteracting variability in product of the one is new to me. (151/2. Scott (op. cit., page 214): "The reproductive organs of phoenogams, as is well-known, are always products of two morphologically distinct organs, the stamens producing the pollen, the carpels producing the ovules...The embryo being in this case the modified resultant of two originally distinct organs, there will necessarily be a greater tendency to efface any individual peculiarities of these than would have been the case had the embryo been the product of a single organ." A different idea seems to have occurred to Mr. Darwin, for in an undated letter to Scott he wrote: "I hardly know what to say on your view of male and female organs and variability. I must think more over it. But I was amused by finding the other day in my portfolio devoted to bud-variation a slip of paper dated June, 1860, with some such words as these, 'May not permanence of grafted buds be due to the two sexual elements derived from different parts not having come into play?' I had utterly forgotten, when I read your paper that any analogous notion had ever passed through my mind—nor can I now remember, but the slip shows me that it had." It is interesting that Huxley also came to a conclusion differing from Scott's; and, curiously enough, Darwin confused the two views, for he wrote to Scott (December 19th): "By an odd chance, reading last night some short lectures just published by Prof. Huxley, I find your observation, independently arrived at by him, on the confluence of the two sexes causing variability." Professor Huxley's remarks are in his "Lectures to Working Men on our Knowledge, etc." No. 4, page 90: "And, indeed, I think that a certain amount of variation from the primitive stock is the necessary result of the method of sexual propagation itself; for inasmuch as the thing propagated proceeds from two organisms of different sexes and different makes and temperaments, and, as the offspring is to be either of one sex or the other, it is quite clear that it cannot be an exact diagonal of the two, or it would be of no sex at all; it cannot be an exact intermediate form between that of each of its parents—it must deviate to one side or the other.") But I cannot avoid thinking that there is something unknown and deeper in seminal generation. Reflect on the long succession of embryological changes in every animal. Does a bud ever produce cotyledons or embryonic leaves? I have been much interested by your remark on inheritance at corresponding ages; I hope you will, as you say, continue to attend to this. Is it true that female Primula plants always produce females by parthenogenesis? (151/3. It seems probable that Darwin here means vegetative reproduction.) If you can answer this I should be glad; it bears on my Primula work. I thought on the subject, but gave up investigating what had been observed, because the female bee by parthenogenesis produces males alone. Your paper has told me much that in my ignorance was quite new to me. Thanks about P. scotica. If any important criticisms are made on the Primula to the Botanical Society, I should be glad to hear them. If you think fit, you may state that I repeated the crossing experiments on P. sinensis and cowslip with the same result this spring as last year—indeed, with rather more marked difference in fertility of the two crosses. In fact, had I then proved the Linum case, I would not have wasted time in repetition. I am determined I will at once publish on Linum...

I read your paper with great interest. (151/1. "On the Nature and Peculiarities of the Fern-spore." "Bot. Soc. Edin." Read June 12th, 1862.) You’re asking for comments on the subject, which is the only thing that really matters. Do you think I’m being rude (I certainly don’t intend to be) if I suggest a thought on the style, which is more important than some people realize? In my opinion (whether it's valuable or not), your paper would have been much better if you had written it more simply and less elaborately—more like your letters. There's a golden rule to use, if possible, a short old Saxon word. A sentence like "so purely dependent is the incipient plant on the specific morphological tendency" doesn’t sound like good English to me—it needs translating. Here and there, I think you could have condensed some sentences. I operate on the principle that every single word that can be removed without losing any meaning is a definite win. Now, you may think I'm meddling: but anyway, this is the advice of an old writer who genuinely wishes you well. Your comment about the two sexes counteracting variability in the product of one is new to me. (151/2. Scott (op. cit., page 214): "The reproductive organs of phoenogams, as is well-known, are always products of two morphologically distinct organs, the stamens producing the pollen, the carpels producing the ovules...The embryo being in this case the modified resultant of two originally distinct organs, there will necessarily be a greater tendency to efface any individual peculiarities of these than would have been the case had the embryo been the product of a single organ." A different idea appears to have occurred to Mr. Darwin, for in an undated letter to Scott he wrote: "I hardly know what to say on your view of male and female organs and variability. I must think more over it. But I was amused to find the other day in my portfolio dedicated to bud-variation a slip of paper dated June 1860, with some words like these, 'May not the permanence of grafted buds be due to the two sexual elements from different parts not having come into play?' I had completely forgotten that any similar notion had ever crossed my mind when I read your paper—nor can I now recall it, but the slip shows me that it had." It's intriguing that Huxley also reached a conclusion different from Scott's; and, strangely enough, Darwin confused the two views, as he wrote to Scott (December 19th): "By an odd chance, reading last night some short lectures just published by Prof. Huxley, I find your observation, independently arrived at by him, on the confluence of the two sexes causing variability." Professor Huxley's remarks are in his "Lectures to Working Men on our Knowledge, etc." No. 4, page 90: "And indeed, I believe that a certain amount of variation from the original stock is the necessary result of the method of sexual reproduction itself; since the organism being propagated originates from two organisms of different sexes and different characteristics, and because the offspring can be either one sex or the other, it’s clear that it cannot be an exact diagonal of the two, or it would be of no sex at all; it can’t be an exact intermediate form between each of its parents—it must deviate to one side or the other.") However, I can’t help thinking that there is something unknown and deeper in seminal generation. Consider the long series of embryological changes in every animal. Does a bud ever produce cotyledons or embryonic leaves? I have been very interested in your remark about inheritance at corresponding ages; I hope you’ll, as you mentioned, continue to look into this. Is it true that female Primula plants always produce females through parthenogenesis? (151/3. It seems likely that Darwin means vegetative reproduction here.) If you can answer this, I would appreciate it; it impacts my Primula work. I thought about the topic, but I stopped my investigation of what had been observed, because the female bee by parthenogenesis produces only males. Your paper has provided me with a lot of new information that I was previously unaware of. Thank you for the information about P. scotica. If any important critiques are made about the Primula to the Botanical Society, I’d love to hear them. If you prefer, you may mention that I repeated the crossing experiments on P. sinensis and cowslip this spring with the same results as last year—indeed, with even clearer differences in the fertility of the two crosses. In fact, had I proven the Linum case then, I wouldn’t have wasted time repeating it. I am determined to publish on Linum immediately...

I was right to be cautious in supposing you in error about Siphocampylus (no flowers were enclosed). I hope that you will make out whether the pistil presents two definite lengths; I shall be astounded if it does. I do not fully understand your objections to Natural Selection; if I do, I presume they would apply with full force to, for instance, birds. Reflect on modification of Arab-Turk horse into our English racehorse. I have had the satisfaction to tell my publisher to send my "Journal" and "Origin" to your address. I suspect, with your fertile mind, you will find it far better to experiment on your own choice; but if, on reflection, you would like to try some which interest me, I should be truly delighted, and in this case would write in some detail. If you have the means to repeat Gartner's experiments on variations of Verbascum or on maize (see the "Origin"), such experiments would be pre-eminently important. I could never get variations of Verbascum. I could suggest an experiment on potatoes analogous with the case of Passiflora; even the case of Passiflora, often as it has been repeated, might be with advantage repeated. I have worked like a slave (having counted about nine thousand seeds) on Melastoma, on the meaning of the two sets of very different stamens, and as yet have been shamefully beaten, and I now cry for aid. I could suggest what I believe a very good scheme (at least, Dr. Hooker thought so) for systematic degeneration of culinary plants, and so find out their origin; but this would be laborious and the work of years.

I was right to be careful in thinking you were mistaken about Siphocampylus (no flowers were included). I hope you can determine whether the pistil has two distinct lengths; I would be shocked if it does. I don’t fully understand your objections to Natural Selection; if I did, I assume they would also apply strongly to birds, for example. Think about how the Arab-Turk horse has changed into our English racehorse. I’ve been happy to tell my publisher to send my "Journal" and "Origin" to your address. I suspect that with your creative mind, you'll find it much better to experiment with what you choose, but if you’d like to try some things that interest me, I would be very happy, and I would write in more detail about it. If you have the ability to repeat Gartner's experiments on variations of Verbascum or on maize (see the "Origin"), those experiments would be extremely important. I could never get variations of Verbascum. I could suggest an experiment on potatoes similar to the case of Passiflora; even the Passiflora case, although often repeated, could benefit from being done again. I have worked hard (having counted about nine thousand seeds) on Melastoma, trying to understand the meaning of the two very different sets of stamens, and so far, I have been unsuccessful, and I now need help. I could propose what I think is a really good plan (at least, Dr. Hooker thought so) for systematically studying the decline of culinary plants to discover their origin; however, this would be a labor-intensive project and would take many years.

LETTER 152. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 12th {December, 1862}.

LETTER 152. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 12, 1862.

My good old Friend—

My old friend—

How kind you have been to give me so much of your time! Your letter is of real use, and has been and shall be well considered. I am much pleased to find that we do not differ as much as I feared. I begin my book with saying that my chief object is to show the inordinate scale of variation; I have especially studied all sorts of variations of the individual. On crossing I cannot change; the more I think, the more reason I have to believe that my conclusion would be agreed to by all practised breeders. I also greatly doubt about variability and domestication being at all necessarily correlative, but I have touched on this in "Origin." Plants being identical under very different conditions has always seemed to me a very heavy argument against what I call direct action. I think perhaps I will take the case of 1,000 pigeons (152/1. See Letter 146.) to sum up my volume; I will not discuss other points, but, as I have said, I shall recur to your letter. But I must just say that if sterility be allowed to come into play, if long-beaked be in the least degree sterile with short-beaked, my whole case is altered. By the way, my notions on hybridity are becoming considerably altered by my dimorphic work. I am now strongly inclined to believe that sterility is at first a selected quality to keep incipient species distinct. If you have looked at Lythrum you will see how pollen can be modified merely to favour crossing; with equal readiness it could be modified to prevent crossing.

How kind you’ve been to dedicate so much of your time to me! Your letter is genuinely helpful and has been, and will continue to be, well thought out. I'm really glad to see that we don’t disagree as much as I was afraid we would. I start my book by stating that my main goal is to highlight the extensive range of variation; I have particularly focused on all kinds of individual variations. I can't change much about crossing; the more I reflect, the more convinced I am that my conclusions would be accepted by all experienced breeders. I also have significant doubts about variability and domestication being necessarily related, but I’ve briefly addressed this in "Origin." The fact that plants can be identical under very different conditions has always struck me as a strong argument against what I call direct action. I’m considering using the example of 1,000 pigeons (152/1. See Letter 146.) to summarize my volume; I won’t discuss other points, but as I mentioned, I will refer back to your letter. However, I must say that if sterility is allowed to influence things, and if long-beaked individuals are even slightly sterile with short-beaked ones, then my entire argument is changed. By the way, my views on hybridity are being significantly influenced by my work on dimorphism. I am now strongly inclined to believe that sterility is initially a selected trait to keep emerging species separate. If you’ve looked at Lythrum, you’ll see how pollen can be modified just to promote crossing; it could just as easily be modified to prevent crossing.

It is this which makes me so much interested with dimorphism, etc. (152/2. This gives a narrow impression of Darwin's interest in dimorphism. The importance of his work was (briefly put) the proof that sterility has no necessary connection with specific difference, but depends on sexual differentiation independent of racial differences. See "Life and Letters," III., page 296. His point of view that sterility is a selected quality is again given in a letter to Huxley ("Life and Letters," II., page 384), but was not upheld in his later writings (see "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 245). The idea of sterility being a selected quality is interesting in connection with Romanes' theory of physiological selection. (See Letters 209-214.))

It’s this that makes me so interested in dimorphism, etc. (152/2. This gives a limited view of Darwin's interest in dimorphism. The main significance of his work was (in short) the proof that sterility isn’t inherently linked to species differences but is based on sexual differentiation that’s separate from racial differences. See "Life and Letters," III., page 296. His perspective that sterility is a selected trait is reiterated in a letter to Huxley ("Life and Letters," II., page 384), but he did not support this idea in his later writings (see "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 245). The notion of sterility being a selected trait is intriguing in relation to Romanes' theory of physiological selection. (See Letters 209-214.))

One word more. When you pitched me head over heels by your new way of looking at the back side of variation, I received assurance and strength by considering monsters—due to law: horribly strange as they are, the monsters were alive till at least when born. They differ at least as much from the parent as any one mammal from another.

One more thing. When you had me completely captivated by your fresh perspective on the back side of variation, I found reassurance and strength in thinking about monsters—because of the law: as terrifyingly strange as they are, monsters were alive at least at the moment of their birth. They vary at least as much from their parents as any mammal does from another.

I have just finished a long, weary chapter on simple facts of variation of cultivated plants, and am now refreshing myself with a paper on Linum for the Linnean Society.

I just wrapped up a long, tiring chapter on basic facts about the variation of cultivated plants, and now I'm taking a break with a paper on Linum for the Linnean Society.

LETTER 153. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER.

(153/1. The following letter also bears on the question of the artificial production of sterility.)

(153/1. The following letter also relates to the issue of creating sterility artificially.)

Down, 27th {December, 1862}.

Down, December 27, 1862.

The present plan is to try whether any existing breeds happen to have acquired accidentally any degree of sterility; but to this point hereafter. The enclosed MS. will show what I have done and know on the subject. Please at some future time carefully return the MS. to me. If I were going to try again, I would prefer Turbit with Carrier or Dragon.

The current plan is to see if any existing breeds have unintentionally developed any level of sterility; we will get to that later. The enclosed manuscript will detail what I have done and what I know about the topic. Please make sure to return the manuscript to me safely in the future. If I were to try again, I would choose Turbit paired with Carrier or Dragon.

I will suggest an analogous experiment, which I have had for two years in my experimental book with "be sure and try," but which, as my health gets yearly weaker and weaker and my other work increases, I suppose I shall never try. Permit me to add that if 5 pounds would cover the expenses of the experiment, I should be delighted to give it, and you could publish the result if there be any result. I crossed the Spanish cock (your bird) and white Silk hen and got plenty of eggs and chickens; but two of them seemed to be quite sterile. I was then sadly overdone with work, but have ever since much reproached myself that I did not preserve and carefully test the procreative power of these hens. Now, if you are inclined to get a Spanish cock and a couple of white Silk hens, I shall be most grateful to hear whether the offspring breed well: they will prove, I think, not hardy; if they should prove sterile, which I can hardly believe, they will anyhow do for the pot. If you do try this, how would it do to put a Silk cock to your curious silky Cochin hen, so as to get a big silk breed; it would be curious if you could get silky fowl with bright colours. I believe a Silk hen crossed by any other breed never gives silky feathers. A cross from Silk cock and Cochin Silk hen ought to give silky feathers and probably bright colours.

I want to suggest a similar experiment that I've had in my experimental book for two years with "be sure to try," but since my health gets weaker every year and my other work keeps piling up, I doubt I'll ever do it. Let me add that if $5 would cover the costs of the experiment, I would be happy to contribute, and you could publish the results if there are any. I crossed the Spanish rooster (your bird) with a white Silk hen and ended up with lots of eggs and chicks; however, two of them seemed pretty sterile. I was overwhelmed with work at that time, but I’ve regretted not preserving and testing the breeding ability of those hens. Now, if you’re interested in getting a Spanish rooster and a couple of white Silk hens, I’d love to hear if the offspring breed well: I think they might not be very hardy; if they turn out to be sterile, which I can hardly believe, they would still be good for the pot. If you do try this, how about putting a Silk rooster with your unique silky Cochin hen to create a big silk breed? It would be interesting if you could get silky birds in bright colors. I believe a Silk hen crossed with any other breed never produces silky feathers. A cross between a Silk rooster and a Cochin Silk hen should produce silky feathers and probably vibrant colors.

I have been led lately from experiments (not published) on dimorphism to reflect much on sterility from hybridism, and partially to change the opinion given in "Origin." I have now letters out enquiring on the following point, implied in the experiment, which seems to me well worth trying, but too laborious ever to be attempted. I would ask every pigeon and fowl fancier whether they have ever observed, in the same breed, a cock A paired to a hen B which did not produce young. Then I would get cock A and match it to a hen of its nearest blood; and hen B to its nearest blood. I would then match the offspring of A (viz., a, b, c, d, e) to the offspring of B (viz., f, g, h, i, j), and all those children which were fertile together should be destroyed until I found one—say a, which was not quite fertile with—say, i. Then a and i should be preserved and paired with their parents A and B, so as to try and get two families which would not unite together; but the members WITHIN each family being fertile together. This would probably be quite hopeless; but he who could effect this would, I believe, solve the problem of sterility from hybridism. If you should ever hear of individual fowls or pigeons which are sterile together, I should be very grateful to hear of the case. It is a parallel case to those recorded of a man not impotent long living with a woman who remained childless; the husband died, and the woman married again and had plenty of children. Apparently (by no means certainly) this first man and woman were dissimilar in their sexual organisation. I conceive it possible that their offspring (if both had married again and both had children) would be sexually dissimilar, like their parents, or sterile together. Pray forgive my dreadful writing; I have been very unwell all day, and have no strength to re-write this scrawl. I am working slowly on, and I suppose in three or four months shall be ready.

I’ve recently been thinking a lot about the issue of sterility from hybridization, sparked by some unshared experiments on dimorphism. It's causing me to reconsider some of the views I expressed in "Origin." I’m currently reaching out to everyone who breeds pigeons and chickens to ask if they’ve ever noticed, within the same breed, a male A paired with a female B that didn’t produce any offspring. I would then take male A and pair it with the closest related female, and female B with her closest-related male. Next, I’d pair the offspring of A (let’s call them a, b, c, d, e) with the offspring of B (let’s call them f, g, h, i, j). Any offspring that are fertile together would be eliminated until I found one—let’s say a—that isn’t completely fertile with—say, i. I would keep a and i and pair them with their original parents A and B, to try to create two families that wouldn’t interbreed, while still ensuring that the members within each family are fertile with one another. This might turn out to be a futile effort; however, I believe that whoever can achieve this would solve the issue of sterility caused by hybridization. If you ever come across individual chickens or pigeons that are sterile together, I’d really appreciate hearing about it. This situation is somewhat similar to cases where a man who isn’t impotent lives with a woman and they remain childless; he passes away, she remarries and has a bunch of kids. It seems (though it’s not certain) that this first couple might have had different sexual makeups. I think it’s possible that if they both remarried and had children, their offspring could also be sexually different, just like their parents, or possibly sterile with each other. Please excuse my awful handwriting; I’ve been feeling quite unwell all day and don’t have the strength to rewrite this mess. I’m making slow progress, and I expect I’ll be ready in three or four months.

I am sure I do not know whether any human being could understand or read this shameful scrawl.

I definitely don't know if anyone could understand or read this embarrassing handwriting.

LETTER 154. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December, 28th {1862}.

LETTER 154. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 28, 1862.

I return enclosed: if you write, thank Mr. Kingsley for thinking of letting me see the sound sense of an Eastern potentate. (154/1. Kingsley's letter to Huxley, dated December 20th, 1862, contains a story or parable of a heathen Khan in Tartary who was visited by a pair of proselytising Moollahs. The first Moollah said: "Oh! Khan, worship my God. He is so wise that he made all things." But Moollah No. 2 won the day by pointing out that his God is "so wise that he makes all things make themselves.") All that I said about the little book (154/2. The six "Lectures to Working Men," published in six pamphlets and in book-form in 1863. Mr. Huxley considered that Mr. Darwin's argument required the production by man's selection of breeds which should be mutually infertile, and thus resemble distinct species physiologically as well as morphologically.) is strictly my opinion; it is in every way excellent, and cannot fail to do good the wider it is circulated. Whether it is worth your while to give up time to it is another question for you alone to decide; that it will do good for the subject is beyond all question. I do not think a dunce exists who could not understand it, and that is a bold saying after the extent to which I have been misunderstood. I did not understand what you required about sterility: assuredly the facts given do not go nearly so far. We differ so much that it is no use arguing. To get the degree of sterility you expect in recently formed varieties seems to me simply hopeless. It seems to me almost like those naturalists who declare they will never believe that one species turns into another till they see every stage in process.

I’m sending this back to you: if you write, please thank Mr. Kingsley for letting me see the clear thinking of an Eastern ruler. (154/1. Kingsley's letter to Huxley, dated December 20th, 1862, includes a story or parable about a heathen Khan in Tartary who was visited by two proselytizing Moollahs. The first Moollah said: "Oh! Khan, worship my God. He is so wise that he created everything." But Moollah No. 2 won by stating that his God is "so wise that he makes all things make themselves.") Everything I said about the little book (154/2. The six "Lectures to Working Men," published in six pamphlets and as a book in 1863. Mr. Huxley thought Mr. Darwin's argument needed the production of breeds by human selection that should be mutually infertile, thus resembling distinct species both physiologically and morphologically.) is purely my opinion; it is truly excellent and will surely do good the more it's shared. Whether it’s worth your time to engage with it is a question only you can answer; however, there's no doubt that it will benefit the topic. I don’t think there’s anyone who couldn’t grasp it, and that’s a bold claim considering how often I’ve been misunderstood. I didn’t understand what you needed regarding sterility: the facts provided certainly don’t cover it nearly enough. We differ so much that there’s no point in arguing. Achieving the level of sterility you expect in recently formed varieties seems completely hopeless to me. It feels almost like those naturalists who claim they won’t believe that one species evolves into another until they see every stage of the process.

I have heard from Tegetmeier, and have given him the result of my crosses of the birds which he proposes to try, and have told him how alone I think the experiment could be tried with the faintest hope of success—namely, to get, if possible, a case of two birds which when paired were unproductive, yet neither impotent. For instance, I had this morning a letter with a case of a Hereford heifer, which seemed to be, after repeated trials, sterile with one particular and far from impotent bull, but not with another bull. But it is too long a story—it is to attempt to make two strains, both fertile, and yet sterile when one of one strain is crossed with one of the other strain. But the difficulty...would be beyond calculation. As far as I see, Tegetmeier's plan would simply test whether two existing breeds are now in any slight degree sterile; which has already been largely tested: not that I dispute the good of re-testing.

I’ve heard from Tegetmeier and shared the results of my bird crosses that he wants to try. I told him that I think the only way this experiment could have any chance of success is if we can find a pair of birds that are unproductive together, yet not impotent. For example, I received a letter this morning about a Hereford heifer that turned out to be sterile with one specific bull after several trials, but not with another bull. It’s a long story—basically, the goal is to try to create two strains that are both fertile but become sterile when one bird from one strain is crossed with one from the other strain. However, the challenges here would be enormous. From what I can tell, Tegetmeier's plan would merely test whether two existing breeds show any slight sterility, which has already been tested extensively. That said, I’m not against the idea of re-testing.

LETTER 155. TO HUGH FALCONER.

(155/1. The original letter is dated "December 10th," but this must, we think, be a slip of the pen for January 10th. It contains a reference to No. VI. of the "Lectures to Working Men" which, as Mr. Leonard Huxley is good enough to inform us, was not delivered until December 15th, and therefore could not have been seen by Mr. Darwin on December 10th. The change of date makes comprehensible the reference to Falconer's paper "On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.)," which appeared in the January number of the "Natural History Review." It is true that he had seen advanced sheets of Falconer's paper ("Life and Letters," II., page 389), but the reference here is to the complete paper.

(155/1. The original letter is dated "December 10th," but we believe this is likely a mistake for January 10th. It references No. VI. of the "Lectures to Working Men," which, as Mr. Leonard Huxley kindly pointed out, wasn't delivered until December 15th, so Mr. Darwin couldn't have seen it on December 10th. The change in date clarifies the mention of Falconer's paper "On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.)," which was published in the January issue of the "Natural History Review." It’s true that he had seen advanced copies of Falconer's paper ("Life and Letters," II., page 389), but the reference here is to the complete paper.

In the present volume we have thought it right to give some expression to the attitude of Darwin towards Owen. Professor Owen's biographer has clearly felt the difficulty of making a statement on Owen's attitude towards Darwinism, and has ("Life of Sir Richard Owen," Volume II., page 92) been driven to adopt the severe indictment contained in the "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page xviii. Darwin was by no means alone in his distrust of Owen; and to omit altogether a reference to the conduct which led up to the isolation of Owen among his former friends and colleagues would be to omit a part of the history of science of the day. And since we cannot omit to notice Darwin's point of view, it seems right to give the facts of a typical case illustrating the feeling with which he regarded Owen. This is all the more necessary since the recently published biography of Sir R. Owen gives no hint, as far as we are aware, of even a difference of opinion with other scientific men.

In this volume, we felt it was important to express Darwin's attitude toward Owen. Professor Owen's biographer clearly struggled to convey Owen's stance on Darwinism and has resorted to the harsh criticism found in "Origin of Species," Edition VI, page xviii. Darwin was not the only one who had doubts about Owen, and ignoring the events that led to Owen's isolation from his former friends and colleagues would leave out a significant part of the scientific history of that time. Since we can’t overlook Darwin’s perspective, it seems appropriate to present the facts of a notable case that illustrates how he viewed Owen. This is especially necessary because the recently published biography of Sir R. Owen gives no indication, as far as we know, of even a difference of opinion with other scientists.

The account which Falconer gives in the above-mentioned paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (January, 1863) would be amusing if the matter were less serious. In 1857 Falconer described ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." XIII.) a new species of fossil elephant from America, to which he gave the name Elephas Columbi, a designation which was recognised and adopted by Continental writers. In 1858 (Brit. Assoc. Leeds) Owen made use of the name "Elephas texianus," Blake" for the species which Falconer had previously named E. Columbi, but without referring to Falconer's determination; he gave no authority, "thus by the established usage in zoology producing it as his own." In 1861 Owen in his Palaeontology, 2nd edition, 1861, describes the elephant as E. texianus, Blake. To Mr. Blake's name is appended an asterisk which refers to a footnote to Bollaert's "Antiquities of S. America," 2nd edition. According to Falconer (page 46) no second edition of Bollaert had appeared at the time of writing (August, 1862), and in the first edition (1860) he was "unable to detect the occurrence of the name even, of E. texianus, anywhere throughout the volume"; though Bollaert mentions the fact that he had deposited, in the British Museum, the tooth of a fossil elephant from Texas.

The account Falconer presents in the paper mentioned above in "Nat. Hist. Review" (January, 1863) would be amusing if the subject weren't so serious. In 1857, Falconer described a new species of fossil elephant from America in the "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." XIII, naming it Elephas Columbi, a name that was recognized and used by writers in Europe. In 1858, during the British Association meeting in Leeds, Owen referred to the species Falconer had named E. Columbi as "Elephas texianus," Blake, but he didn’t credit Falconer’s identification; he provided no source, effectively claiming it as his own. In 1861, Owen in his Palaeontology, 2nd edition, 1861, refers to the elephant as E. texianus, Blake. An asterisk next to Mr. Blake's name points to a footnote in Bollaert's "Antiquities of S. America," 2nd edition. However, according to Falconer (page 46), no second edition of Bollaert had been published when he wrote in August 1862, and in the first edition (1860), he could not find the name E. texianus mentioned anywhere in the volume, even though Bollaert did note that he had deposited a fossil elephant tooth from Texas in the British Museum.

In November, 1861, Blake wrote a paper in the "Geologist" in which the new elephant no longer bears his own name as authority, but is described as "Elephas texianus, Owen, E. Columbi, Falconer." Finally, in another paper the name of Owen is dropped and the elephant is once more his own. As Falconer remarks, "the usage of science does not countenance such accommodating arrangements, when the result is to prejudice a prior right."

In November 1861, Blake wrote an article in the "Geologist" where the new elephant is no longer referred to by his name as authority but is identified as "Elephas texianus, Owen, E. Columbi, Falconer." Ultimately, in another article, Owen's name is removed and the elephant is once again attributed to him. As Falconer points out, "the usage of science does not support such flexible arrangements, especially when it undermines a prior right."

It may be said, no doubt, that the question who first described a given species is a petty one; but this view has a double edge, and applies most strongly to those who neglect the just claims of their predecessors.

It might be argued that the question of who first described a certain species is a trivial one; however, this perspective has its drawbacks, especially for those who overlook the rightful contributions of those who came before them.

Down, January 5th {1863}.

Down, January 5, 1863.

I finished your Elephant paper last night, and you must let me express my admiration at it. (155/2. "On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.), etc." "Nat. Hist. Rev." 1863, page 81. (Cf. Letter to Lyell. "Life and Letters," II., page 389; also "Origin," Edition VI., page 306.) See Letter 143.) All the points strike me as admirably worked out, and very many most interesting. I was particularly struck with your remarks on the character of the ancient Mammalian Fauna of N. America (155/3. Falconer, page 62. This passage is marked in Darwin's copy.); it agrees with all I fancied was the case, namely a temporary irruption of S. American forms into N. America, and conversely, I chuckled a little over the specimen of M. Andium "hesitating" between the two groups. (155/4. In speaking of the characters of Mastodon Andium, Falconer refers to a former paper by himself ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XIII. 1857, page 313), in which he called attention "to the exceptional character of certain specimens of M. Andium, as if hesitating between {the groups} Tetralophodon and Trilophodon" (ibid., page 100).) I have been assured by Mr. Wallace that abundant Mastodon remains have been found at Timor, and that is rather close to Australia. I rejoice that you have smashed that case. (155/5. In the paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (loc. cit.) Falconer writes: "It seems more probable that some unintentional error has got mixed up with the history of this remarkable fossil; and until further confirmatory evidence is adduced, of an unimpeachable character, faith cannot be reposed in the reality of the asserted Australian Mastodon" (page 101).) It is indeed a grand paper. I will say nothing more about your allusions to me, except that they have pleased me quite as much in print as in MS. You must have worked very hard; the labour must have been extreme, but I do hope that you will have health and strength to go on. You would laugh if you could see how indignant all Owen's mean conduct about E. Columbi made me. (155/6. See Letter 157.) I did not get to sleep till past 3 o'clock. How well you lash him, firmly and severely, with unruffled temper, as if you were performing a simple duty. The case is come to such a pass, that I think every man of science is bound to show his feelings by some overt act, and I shall watch for a fitting opportunity.

I finished your Elephant paper last night, and I have to express my admiration for it. (155/2. "On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.), etc." "Nat. Hist. Rev." 1863, page 81. (Cf. Letter to Lyell. "Life and Letters," II., page 389; also "Origin," Edition VI., page 306.) See Letter 143.) All the points really stand out as brilliantly worked out, and many of them are incredibly interesting. I was especially struck by your comments on the nature of the ancient Mammalian Fauna of North America (155/3. Falconer, page 62. This passage is highlighted in Darwin's copy.); it aligns with what I suspected, which is that there was a temporary influx of South American species into North America, and vice versa. I found it amusing that the specimen of M. Andium seems to be "hesitating" between the two groups. (155/4. In discussing the characteristics of Mastodon Andium, Falconer refers to a previous paper of his ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XIII. 1857, page 313), where he noted "the exceptional character of certain specimens of M. Andium, as if hesitating between {the groups} Tetralophodon and Trilophodon" (ibid., page 100).) Mr. Wallace has told me that numerous Mastodon remains have been discovered in Timor, which is pretty close to Australia. I'm glad you cleared that up. (155/5. In the paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (loc. cit.) Falconer states: "It seems more probable that some unintentional error has gotten mixed up with the history of this remarkable fossil; and until further confirmatory evidence of an unimpeachable nature is provided, faith cannot be placed in the reality of the alleged Australian Mastodon" (page 101).) It truly is an impressive paper. I won't say much about your references to me, except that they pleased me just as much in print as they did in manuscript. You must have put in a ton of effort; it must have been exhausting, but I really hope you stay healthy and strong to continue. You would laugh if you saw how furious Owen's petty behavior about E. Columbi made me. (155/6. See Letter 157.) I didn't fall asleep until after 3 o'clock. You handle him so well, firmly and harshly, but with such calmness, as if you're just doing your duty. The situation has reached the point where I believe every scientist should express their feelings through some action, and I will look for the right opportunity.

P.S.—I have kept back for a day the enclosed owing to the arrival of your most interesting letter. I knew it was a mere chance whether you could inform me on the points required; but no one other person has so often responded to my miscellaneous queries. I believe I have now in my greenhouse L. trigynum (155/7. Linum trigynum.), which came up from seed purchased as L. flavum, from which it is wholly different in foliage. I have just sent in a paper on Dimorphism of Linum to the Linnean Society (155/8. "On the Existence of the Forms, and on their reciprocal Sexual Relation, in several species of the genus Linum.—"Journ. Linn. Soc." Volume VII., page 69, 1864.), and so I do not doubt your memory is right about L. trigynum: the functional difference in the two forms of Linum is really wonderful. I assure you I quite long to see you and a few others in London; it is not so much the eczema which has taken the epidermis a dozen times clean off; but I have been knocked up of late with extraordinary facility, and when I shall be able to come up I know not. I particularly wish to hear about the wondrous bird: the case has delighted me, because no group is so isolated as Birds. I much wish to hear when we meet which digits are developed; when examining birds two or three years ago, I distinctly remember writing to Lyell that some day a fossil bird would be found with the end of wing cloven, i.e. the bastard-wing and other part, both well developed. Thanks for Von Martius, returned by this post, which I was glad to see. Poor old Wagner (Probably Johann Andreas Wagner, author of "Zur Feststellung des Artbegriffes, mit besonderer Bezugnahme auf die Ansichten von Nathusius, Darwin, Is. Geoffroy and Agassiz," "Munchen Sitzungsb." (1861), page 301, and of numerous papers on zoological and palaeozoological subjects.) always attacked me in a proper spirit, and sent me two or three little brochures, and I thanked him cordially. The Germans seem much stirred up on the subject. I received by the same post almost a little volume on the "Origin."

P.S.—I held off sending the enclosed for a day because your fascinating letter arrived. I knew it was a long shot whether you could give me the information I needed, but no one else has responded to my random questions as often as you have. I believe I now have L. trigynum (155/7. Linum trigynum.) in my greenhouse, which grew from seeds I bought as L. flavum, even though it's completely different in leaves. I've just submitted a paper on the Dimorphism of Linum to the Linnean Society (155/8. "On the Existence of the Forms, and on their reciprocal Sexual Relation, in several species of the genus Linum.—"Journ. Linn. Soc." Volume VII., page 69, 1864.), and I trust your memory is correct about L. trigynum: the functional differences between the two forms of Linum are truly remarkable. I really look forward to seeing you and a few others in London; it's not just the eczema that's caused my skin to peel off several times, but I’ve been feeling washed out lately, and I can't say when I'll be able to come up. I'm especially eager to hear about the amazing bird: the case has fascinated me because no group is as isolated as birds. I’m curious to find out when we meet which digits are developed; when I was studying birds two or three years ago, I clearly remember telling Lyell that someday a fossil bird would be discovered with a split wing, meaning the bastard-wing and another part, both well defined. Thanks for sending back Von Martius in this post; I was glad to see it. Poor old Wagner (Probably Johann Andreas Wagner, author of "Zur Feststellung des Artbegriffes, mit besonderer Bezugnahme auf die Ansichten von Nathusius, Darwin, Is. Geoffroy and Agassiz," "Munchen Sitzungsb." (1861), page 301, and of numerous papers on zoological and palaeozoological subjects.) always engaged with me in a constructive way and sent me a couple of little booklets, for which I thanked him sincerely. The Germans seem quite stirred up about this topic. I also received a nearly complete volume on the "Origin" in the same post.

I cannot work above a couple of hours daily, and this plays the deuce with me.

I can’t work more than a couple of hours a day, and this really messes with me.

P.S. 2nd.—I have worked like a slave and been baffled like a slave in trying to make out the meaning of two very different sets of stamens in some Melastomaceae. (155/9. Several letters on the Melastomaceae occur in our Botanical section.) I must tell you one fact. I counted 9,000 seeds, one by one, from my artificially fertilised pods. There is something very odd, but I am as yet beaten. Plants from two pollens grow at different rates! Now, what I want to know is, whether in individuals of the same species, growing together, you have ever noticed any difference in the position of the pistil or in the size and colour of the stamens?

P.S. 2nd.—I've worked incredibly hard and felt completely stumped trying to understand the meaning of two very different sets of stamens in some Melastomaceae. (155/9. Several letters on the Melastomaceae appear in our Botanical section.) I must share one fact. I counted 9,000 seeds, one by one, from my artificially fertilized pods. There's something very strange going on, but I'm still perplexed. Plants from two different pollens grow at different rates! Now, what I want to know is whether you've ever noticed any differences in the position of the pistil or in the size and color of the stamens among individuals of the same species growing together?

LETTER 156. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 18th {1862}.

I have read Nos. IV, and V. (156/1. "On our Knowledge of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature," being six Lectures to Working Men delivered at the Museum of Practical Geology by Prof. Huxley, 1863. These lectures, which were given once a week from November 10th, 1862, onwards, were printed from the notes of Mr. J.A. Mays, a shorthand writer, who asked permission to publish them on his own account; Mr. Huxley stating in a prefatory "Notice" that he had no leisure to revise the lectures.) They are simply perfect. They ought to be largely advertised; but it is very good in me to say so, for I threw down No. IV. with this reflection, "What is the good of writing a thundering big book, when everything is in this green little book, so despicable for its size?" In the name of all that is good and bad, I may as well shut up shop altogether. You put capitally and most simply and clearly the relation of animals and plants to each other at page 122.

I have read Nos. IV and V. (156/1. "On our Knowledge of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature," which consists of six lectures given to working men at the Museum of Practical Geology by Prof. Huxley in 1863. These lectures were held weekly from November 10th, 1862, and were printed from the notes of Mr. J.A. Mays, a shorthand writer who requested permission to publish them on his own behalf; Mr. Huxley noted in a prefatory "Notice" that he didn’t have time to revise the lectures.) They are absolutely perfect. They should be promoted widely; but it's very generous of me to say that, considering I tossed aside No. IV with the thought, "What’s the point of writing a massive book when everything is in this tiny little book, so insignificant because of its size?" Honestly, I might as well close up shop entirely. You express the relationship between animals and plants in such a great and straightforward way on page 122.

Be careful about Fantails: their tail-feathers are fixed in a radiating position, but they can depress and elevate them. I remember in a pigeon-book seeing withering contempt expressed at some naturalist for not knowing this important point! Page 111 (156/2. The reference is to the original little green paper books in which the lectures first appeared; the paging in the bound volume dated 1863 is slightly different. The passage here is, "...If you couple a male and female hybrid...the result is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at all." Darwin maintains elsewhere that Huxley, from not knowing the botanical evidence, made too much of this point. See "Life and Letters," II., page 384.) seems a little too strong—viz., ninety-nine out of a hundred, unless you except plants.

Be careful about Fantails: their tail feathers are usually spread out in a fan shape, but they can lower and raise them. I remember reading in a pigeon book how a naturalist was harshly criticized for not knowing this key fact! Page 111 (156/2. The reference is to the original small green paper books where the lectures first appeared; the pagination in the bound volume from 1863 is slightly different. The passage here is, "...If you mate a male and female hybrid...the outcome is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at all." Darwin argues elsewhere that Huxley, lacking the botanical evidence, placed too much emphasis on this point. See "Life and Letters," II., page 384.) seems a bit excessive—specifically, ninety-nine out of a hundred, unless you’re talking about plants.

Page 118: You say the answer to varieties when crossed being at all sterile is "absolutely a negative." (156/3. Huxley, page 112: "Can we find any approximation to this {sterility of hybrids} in the different races known to be produced by selective breeding from a common stock? Up to the present time the answer to that question is absolutely a negative one.") Do you mean to say that Gartner lied, after experiments by the hundred (and he a hostile witness), when he showed that this was the case with Verbascum and with maize (and here you have selected races): does Kolreuter lie when he speaks about the varieties of tobacco? My God, is not the case difficult enough, without its being, as I must think, falsely made more difficult? I believe it is my own fault—my d—d candour: I ought to have made ten times more fuss about these most careful experiments. I did put it stronger in the third edition of the "Origin." If you have a new edition, do consider your second geological section: I do not dispute the truth of your statement; but I maintain that in almost every case the gravel would graduate into the mud; that there would not be a hard, straight line between the mass of gravel and mud; that the gravel, in crawling inland, would be separated from the underlying beds by oblique lines of stratification. A nice idea of the difficulty of Geology your section would give to a working man! Do show your section to Ramsay, and tell him what I say; and if he thinks it a fair section for a beginner I am shut up, and "will for ever hold my tongue." Good-night.

Page 118: You say that the answer to whether varieties crossed are at all sterile is "absolutely a negative." (156/3. Huxley, page 112: "Can we find any approximation to this {sterility of hybrids} in the different races known to be produced by selective breeding from a common stock? Up to now, the answer to that question is absolutely negative.") Do you really think that Gartner lied, after conducting hundreds of experiments (and being a hostile witness), when he demonstrated this with Verbascum and corn (and here you have selected races)? Does Kolreuter lie when he talks about the varieties of tobacco? My God, isn’t the situation complicated enough without it being, as I must believe, falsely made more complex? I think it’s my own fault—my damn candor: I should have made a much bigger deal about these very careful experiments. I did emphasize it more strongly in the third edition of the "Origin." If you have a new edition, please reconsider your second geological section: I don't dispute your statement's truth; but I argue that in nearly every case, the gravel would transition into the mud; that there wouldn't be a hard, straight line between the gravel and mud; that as the gravel moves inland, it would be separated from the underlying layers by slanted lines of stratification. A nice idea of how difficult geology is your section would give to a working person! Please show your section to Ramsay, and tell him what I said; if he thinks it’s a fair section for a beginner, I’ll be silenced and "will forever hold my tongue." Good night.

LETTER 157. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, {January} 10th {1863}.

LETTER 157. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 10, 1863.

You will be weary of notes from me about the little book of yours. It is lucky for me that I expressed, before reading No. VI. (157/1. "Lectures to Working Men," No. VI., is a critical examination of the position of the "Origin of Species" in relation to the complete theory of the "causes of the phenomena of organic nature."), my opinion of its absolute excellence, and of its being well worth wide distribution and worth correction (not that I see where you could improve), if you thought it worth your valuable time. Had I read No. VI., even a rudiment of modesty would, or ought to, have stopped me saying so much. Though I have been well abused, yet I have had so much praise, that I have become a gourmand, both as to capacity and taste; and I really did not think that mortal man could have tickled my palate in the exquisite manner with which you have done the job. So I am an old ass, and nothing more need be said about this. I agree entirely with all your reservations about accepting the doctrine, and you might have gone further with further safety and truth. Of course I do not wholly agree about sterility. I hate beyond all things finding myself in disagreement with any capable judge, when the premises are the same; and yet this will occasionally happen. Thinking over my former letter to you, I fancied (but I now doubt) that I had partly found out the cause of our disagreement, and I attributed it to your naturally thinking most about animals, with which the sterility of the hybrids is much more conspicuous than the lessened fertility of the first cross. Indeed, this could hardly be ascertained with mammals, except by comparing the products of {their} whole life; and, as far as I know, this has only been ascertained in the case of the horse and ass, which do produce fewer offspring in {their} lifetime than in pure breeding. In plants the test of first cross seems as fair as test of sterility of hybrids. And this latter test applies, I will maintain to the death, to the crossing of varieties of Verbascum, and varieties, selected varieties, of Zea. (157/2. See Letter 156.) You will say Go to the Devil and hold your tongue. No, I will not hold my tongue; for I must add that after going, for my present book, all through domestic animals, I have come to the conclusion that there are almost certainly several cases of two or three or more species blended together and now perfectly fertile together. Hence I conclude that there must be something in domestication,—perhaps the less stable conditions, the very cause which induces so much variability,—which eliminates the natural sterility of species when crossed. If so, we can see how unlikely that sterility should arise between domestic races. Now I will hold my tongue. Page 143: ought not "Sanscrit" to be "Aryan"? What a capital number the last "Natural History Review" is! That is a grand paper by Falconer. I cannot say how indignant Owen's conduct about E. Columbi has made me. I believe I hate him more than you do, even perhaps more than good old Falconer does. But I have bubbled over to one or two correspondents on this head, and will say no more. I have sent Lubbock a little review of Bates' paper in "Linn. Transact." (157/3. The unsigned review of Mr. Bates' work on mimetic butterflies appeared in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (1863), page 219.) which L. seems to think will do for your "Review." Do inaugurate a great improvement, and have pages cut, like the Yankees do; I will heap blessings on your head. Do not waste your time in answering this.

You’re probably tired of hearing from me about your little book. Luckily, I expressed my opinion about its absolute excellence before reading No. VI. (157/1. "Lectures to Working Men," No. VI., is a critical examination of the position of the "Origin of Species" in relation to the complete theory of the "causes of the phenomena of organic nature."), and I think it deserves wide distribution and could use some corrections (not that I see where you could improve), if you feel it’s worth your time. If I had read No. VI., even a tiny bit of modesty should have stopped me from saying so much. Even though I’ve been criticized, the praise I’ve received has made me quite discerning about quality; I honestly didn’t think anyone could engage my interests as you have. So I’m just an old fool, and there’s nothing more to say about that. I completely agree with your hesitations about accepting the doctrine, and you might have gone even further with more safety and accuracy. Of course, I don’t fully agree about sterility. I really dislike finding myself at odds with any capable judge when we share the same premises; yet it does happen. Reflecting on my previous letter to you, I thought (though I now doubt it) that I had partially discovered the reason for our disagreement, attributing it to your focus on animals, where the sterility of hybrids is much more obvious than the reduced fertility of the first cross. In fact, it’s hard to establish this with mammals unless you compare the results of their entire lives; as far as I know, this has only been confirmed with horses and donkeys, which do have fewer offspring over their lifetimes than purebreds. In plants, the test of the first cross seems as valid as testing the sterility of hybrids. And this latter test, I will argue to the end, applies to the crossing of varieties of Verbascum and selected varieties of Zea. (157/2. See Letter 156.) You might say, "Go to hell and be quiet." No, I won’t be quiet; I must add that after reviewing domestic animals for my current book, I’ve concluded that there are likely several instances of two, three, or more species mingling together and being perfectly fertile. Therefore, I infer that there’s something about domestication—perhaps the less stable conditions, the very cause of so much variability—that removes the natural sterility of species when crossed. If that’s the case, it makes sense that sterility is unlikely to occur between domestic breeds. Now I will be quiet. Page 143: shouldn’t "Sanscrit" be "Aryan"? The latest "Natural History Review" is fantastic! That paper by Falconer is excellent. I can’t express how indignant Owen’s behavior concerning E. Columbi has made me. I believe I dislike him even more than you do, perhaps even more than good old Falconer does. But I’ve vented to a couple of correspondents about this and will say no more. I’ve sent Lubbock a short review of Bates' paper in "Linn. Transact." (157/3. The unsigned review of Mr. Bates' work on mimetic butterflies appeared in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (1863), page 219.) which L. thinks will be suitable for your "Review." Please implement a great improvement and have the pages trimmed, like the Yankees do; I will shower blessings on you. Don't waste your time answering this.

LETTER 158. TO JOHN LUBBOCK {LORD AVEBURY}. Down, January 23rd {1863}.

I have no criticism, except one sentence not perfectly smooth. I think your introductory remarks very striking, interesting, and novel. (158/1. "On the Development of Chloeon (Ephemera) dimidiatum, Part I. By John Lubbock. "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., pages 61-78, 1864 {Read January 15th, 1863}.) They interested me the more, because the vaguest thoughts of the same kind had passed through my head; but I had no idea that they could be so well developed, nor did I know of exceptions. Sitaris and Meloe (158/2. Sitaris and Meloe, two genera of coleopterous insects, are referred to by Lubbock (op. cit., pages 63-64) as "perhaps...the most remarkable cases...among the Coleoptera" of curious and complicated metamorphoses.) seem very good. You have put the whole case of metamorphosis in a new light; I dare say what you remark about poverty of fresh-water is very true. (158/3. "We cannot but be struck by the poverty of the fresh-water fauna when compared with that of the ocean" (op. cit., page 64).) I think you might write a memoir on fresh-water productions. I suggest that the key-note is that land-productions are higher and have advantage in general over marine; and consequently land-productions have generally been modified into fresh-water productions, instead of marine productions being directly changed into fresh-water productions, as at first seems more probable, as the chance of immigration is always open from sea to rivers and ponds.

I have no criticism, except for one sentence that isn’t perfectly smooth. I think your introductory comments are very striking, interesting, and original. (158/1. "On the Development of Chloeon (Ephemera) dimidiatum, Part I. By John Lubbock. "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., pages 61-78, 1864 {Read January 15th, 1863}.) They intrigued me even more because I’ve had vague thoughts on the same topic, but I never realized they could be so thoroughly developed, nor did I know of exceptions. Sitaris and Meloe (158/2. Sitaris and Meloe, two genera of beetles, are mentioned by Lubbock (op. cit., pages 63-64) as "perhaps...the most remarkable cases...among the Coleoptera" of unusual and complicated life cycles.) seem very compelling. You’ve presented the entire case of metamorphosis in a new light; I suspect your observation about the scarcity of fresh-water fauna is very accurate. (158/3. "We cannot but be struck by the poverty of the fresh-water fauna when compared with that of the ocean" (op. cit., page 64).) I believe you could write a memoir on fresh-water species. I suggest that the main idea is that land species are generally more advanced and have the upper hand over marine ones; as a result, land species have mostly been adapted into fresh-water species, rather than marine species being directly altered into fresh-water species, as might initially seem more likely, since there’s always a chance for immigration from the sea to rivers and ponds.

My talk with you did me a deal of good, and I enjoyed it much.

My conversation with you was really beneficial, and I enjoyed it a lot.

LETTER 159. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 13th {1863}.

I send a very imperfect answer to {your} question, which I have written on foreign paper to save you copying, and you can send when you write to Thomson in Calcutta. Hereafter I shall be able to answer better your question about qualities induced in individuals being inherited; gout in man—loss of wool in sheep (which begins in the first generation and takes two or three to complete); probably obesity (for it is rare with poor); probably obesity and early maturity in short-horn cattle, etc., etc.

I’m sending an imperfect response to your question, which I’ve written on foreign paper to save you the trouble of copying it. You can include it when you write to Thomson in Calcutta. In the future, I’ll be able to answer better about whether qualities induced in individuals are inherited; for example, gout in humans, loss of wool in sheep (which starts in the first generation and takes two or three generations to complete), likely obesity (since it’s rare among the poor), and probably obesity and early maturity in short-horn cattle, etc.

LETTER 160. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 14th {1863}.

I thank you most sincerely for sending me your Memoir. (160/1. Etude sur l'Espece a l'occasion d'une revision de la Famille des Cupuliferes. "Biblioth. Univ. (Arch. des Sc. Phys. et Nat.)," Novembre 1862.) I have read it with the liveliest interest, as is natural for me; but you have the art of making subjects, which might be dry, run easily. I have been fairly astonished at the amount of individual variability in the oaks. I never saw before the subject in any department of nature worked out so carefully. What labour it must have cost you! You spoke in one letter of advancing years; but I am very sure that no one would have suspected that you felt this. I have been interested with every part; though I am so unfortunate as to differ from most of my contemporaries in thinking that the vast continental extensions (160/2. See Letters 47, 48.) of Forbes, Heer, and others are not only advanced without sufficient evidence, but are opposed to much weighty evidence. You refer to my work in the kindest and most generous spirit. I am fully satisfied at the length in belief to which you go, and not at all surprised at the prudent reservations which you make. I remember well how many years it cost me to go round from old beliefs. It is encouraging to me to observe that everyone who has gone an inch with me, after a period goes a few more inches or even feet. But the great point, as it seems to me, is to give up the immutability of specific forms; as long as they are thought immutable, there can be no real progress in "Epiontology." (160/3. See De Candolle, loc. cit., page 67: he defines "Epiontologie" as the study of the distribution and succession of organised beings from their origin up to the present time. At present Epiontology is divided into geography and palaeontology, "mais cette division trop inegale et a limites bien vagues disparaitra probablement.") It matters very little to any one except myself, whether I am a little more or less wrong on this or that point; in fact, I am sure to be proved wrong in many points. But the subject will have, I am convinced, a grand future. Considering that birds are the most isolated group in the animal kingdom, what a splendid case is this Solenhofen bird-creature with its long tail and fingers to its wings! I have lately been daily and hourly using and quoting your "Geographical Botany" in my book on "Variation under Domestication."

I sincerely thank you for sending me your Memoir. (160/1. Study on the Species in relation to a review of the Family of Cupuliferes. "Biblioth. Univ. (Arch. des Sc. Phys. et Nat.)," November 1862.) I read it with great interest, as you might expect from me; you have a knack for making potentially dry topics flow easily. I’ve been quite astonished by the level of individual variability in oaks. I haven’t seen any topic in nature examined so thoroughly before. What a huge effort it must have taken! In one letter, you mentioned advancing years; however, I'm certain no one would have guessed you felt this way. I've found every part of it interesting, though I'm unfortunately in disagreement with most of my contemporaries regarding the vast continental extensions (160/2. See Letters 47, 48.) proposed by Forbes, Heer, and others, which I think are not only advanced without enough evidence but also contradict substantial evidence. You refer to my work in the kindest and most generous way. I fully agree with the extent of belief you have and I'm not at all surprised by the careful reservations you make. I remember well how many years it took me to move away from old beliefs. It's encouraging for me to see that everyone who has progressed even a little with me eventually goes a bit further or even much further. But the key point, it seems to me, is to let go of the idea that specific forms are unchangeable; as long as they are thought to be unchangeable, there can be no real progress in "Epiontology." (160/3. See De Candolle, loc. cit., page 67: he defines "Epiontologie" as the study of the distribution and succession of organized beings from their origin to the present. Currently, Epiontology is divided into geography and paleontology, "but this unequal division with vague boundaries will probably disappear.") It matters very little to anyone but me whether I'm a bit more or less wrong on this or that point; in fact, I'm sure I will be proven wrong on many points. But I am convinced this subject has a grand future. Considering that birds are the most isolated group in the animal kingdom, what a remarkable case this Solenhofen bird-creature is, with its long tail and wing fingers! I have been using and quoting your "Geographical Botany" daily in my book on "Variation under Domestication."

LETTER 161. TO HORACE DOBELL. Down, February 16th {1863}.

Absence from home and consequent idleness are the causes that I have not sooner thanked you for your very kind present of your Lectures. (161/1. "On the Germs and Vestiges of Disease," (London) 1861.) Your reasoning seems quite satisfactory (though the subject is rather beyond my limit of thought and knowledge) on the V.M.F. not being "a given quantity." (161/2. "It has been too common to consider the force exhibited in the operations of life (the V.M.F.) as a given quantity, to which no accessions can be made, but which is apportioned to each living being in quantity sufficient for its necessities, according to some hidden law" (op. cit., page 41.) And I can see that the conditions of life must play a most important part in allowing this quantity to increase, as in the budding of a tree, etc. How far these conditions act on "the forms of organic life" (page 46) I do not see clearly. In fact, no part of my subject has so completely puzzled me as to determine what effect to attribute to (what I vaguely call) the direct action of the conditions of life. I shall before long come to this subject, and must endeavour to come to some conclusion when I have got the mass of collected facts in some sort of order in my mind. My present impression is that I have underrated this action in the "Origin." I have no doubt when I go through your volume I shall find other points of interest and value to me. I have already stumbled on one case (about which I want to consult Mr. Paget)—namely, on the re-growth of supernumerary digits. (161/3. See Letters 178, 270.) You refer to "White on Regeneration, etc., 1785." I have been to the libraries of the Royal and the Linnean Societies, and to the British Museum, where the librarians got out your volume and made a special hunt, and could discover no trace of such a book. Will you grant me the favour of giving me any clue, where I could see the book? Have you it? if so, and the case is given briefly, would you have the great kindness to copy it? I much want to know all particulars. One case has been given me, but with hardly minute enough details, of a supernumerary little finger which has already been twice cut off, and now the operation will soon have to be done for the third time. I am extremely much obliged for the genealogical table; the fact of the two cousins not, as far as yet appears, transmitting the peculiarity is extraordinary, and must be given by me.

Being away from home and not having much to do are the reasons I haven’t thanked you sooner for your kind gift of your Lectures. (161/1. "On the Germs and Vestiges of Disease," (London) 1861.) Your arguments make a lot of sense to me (even though the topic is somewhat beyond my understanding) about the V.M.F. not being "a given quantity." (161/2. "It has been too common to consider the force exhibited in the operations of life (the V.M.F.) as a given quantity, to which no accessions can be made, but which is apportioned to each living being in quantity sufficient for its necessities, according to some hidden law" (op. cit., page 41.) I can see that the conditions of life play a significant role in allowing this quantity to increase, like in the budding of a tree, etc. I'm not clear on how much these conditions influence "the forms of organic life" (page 46). In fact, no part of my subject has confused me as much as figuring out what effect to assign to what I vaguely refer to as the direct influence of life’s conditions. Soon, I will get to this subject, and I need to make an effort to reach some conclusion once I have organized the collected facts in my mind. My current impression is that I may have underestimated this influence in the "Origin." I believe that when I go through your volume, I’ll find other topics that will interest and benefit me. I’ve already come across one case (about which I want to consult Mr. Paget)—specifically, regarding the re-growth of extra digits. (161/3. See Letters 178, 270.) You mention "White on Regeneration, etc., 1785." I’ve checked the libraries of the Royal and the Linnean Societies, as well as the British Museum, where the librarians retrieved your volume and searched specifically, but they couldn’t find any record of such a book. Could you please help me by giving me any clue about where I could find it? Do you have it? If so, and the case is described briefly, would you kindly copy it for me? I really want to know all the details. One case has been shared with me, but it lacks sufficient detail—it's about an extra little finger that has already been cut off twice, and now the operation will soon need to be done for the third time. I’m very grateful for the genealogical table; the fact that the two cousins, as far as it seems, haven’t passed on the peculiarity is extraordinary and must be noted by me.

LETTER 162. TO C. LYELL. {February 17th, 1863.}

The same post that brought the enclosed brought Dana's pamphlet on the same subject. (162/1. The pamphlet referred to was published in "Silliman's Journal," Volume XXV., 1863, pages 65 and 71, also in the "Annals and Magazine of Natural History," Volume XI., pages 207-14, 1863: "On the Higher Subdivisions in the Classification of Mammals." In this paper Dana maintains the view that "Man's title to a position by himself, separate from the other mammals in classification, appears to be fixed on structural as well as physical grounds" (page 210). His description is as follows:—

The same mail that included the enclosed also brought Dana's pamphlet on the same topic. (162/1. The pamphlet mentioned was published in "Silliman's Journal," Volume XXV., 1863, pages 65 and 71, and also in the "Annals and Magazine of Natural History," Volume XI., pages 207-14, 1863: "On the Higher Subdivisions in the Classification of Mammals." In this paper, Dana argues that "Man's claim to a distinct position, separate from other mammals in classification, seems to be based on both structural and physical reasons" (page 210). His description is as follows:—

     I.  ARCHONTIA (vel DIPODA) Man (alone).

     II.  MEGASTHENA.       III.  MICROSTHENA.
     Quadrumana.            Cheiroptera.
     Carnivora.             Insectivora.
     Herbivora.             Rodentia.
     Mutilata.              Bruta (Edentata).

     IV.  OOTICOIDEA.
     Marsupialia.
     Monotremata.)

     I.  ARCHONTIA (or DIPODA) Man (alone).

     II.  MEGASTHENA.       III.  MICROSTHENA.
     Primates.            Bats.
     Carnivores.             Insectivores.
     Herbivores.             Rodents.
     Mutilated.              Brutes (Toothless).

     IV.  OOTICOIDEA.
     Marsupials.
     Monotremes.

The whole seems to me utterly wild. If there had not been the foregone wish to separate men, I can never believe that Dana or any one would have relied on so small a distinction as grown man not using fore-limbs for locomotion, seeing that monkeys use their limbs in all other respects for the same purpose as man. To carry on analogous principles (for they are not identical, in crustacea the cephalic limbs are brought close to mouth) from crustacea to the classification of mammals seems to me madness. Who would dream of making a fundamental distinction in birds, from fore-limbs not being used at all in {some} birds, or used as fins in the penguin, and for flight in other birds?

The whole thing seems completely crazy to me. If there hadn't been a pre-existing desire to separate humans, I can't believe that Dana or anyone would have relied on such a minor difference as grown men not using their front limbs for movement, especially since monkeys use their limbs for pretty much the same purposes as humans do. Trying to apply similar principles (because they aren’t identical— in crustaceans, the front limbs are really close to the mouth) from crustaceans to classify mammals seems insane. Who would think to make a fundamental distinction among birds just because some birds don’t use their front limbs at all, while others use them as fins like penguins, and others use them for flying?

I get on slowly with your grand work, for I am overwhelmed with odds and ends and letters.

I’m making slow progress on your great work because I’m swamped with various tasks and emails.

LETTER 163. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(163/1. The following extract refers to Owen's paper in the "Linn. Soc. Journal," June, 1857, in which the classification of the Mammalia by cerebral characters was proposed. In spite of the fact that men and apes are placed in distinct Sub-Classes, Owen speaks (in the foot-note of which Huxley made such telling effect) of the determination of the difference between Homo and Pithecus as the anatomist's difficulty. (See Letter 119.))

(163/1. The following extract refers to Owen's paper in the "Linn. Soc. Journal," June, 1857, where he proposed classifying Mammals based on brain characteristics. Even though men and apes are categorized in separate Sub-Classes, Owen mentions (in the footnote that Huxley famously highlighted) that figuring out the difference between Homo and Pithecus is a challenge for anatomists. (See Letter 119.))

July 5th, 1857.

July 5, 1857.

What a capital number of the "Linnean Journal!" Owen's is a grand paper; but I cannot swallow Man making a division as distinct from a chimpanzee as an Ornithorhynchus from a horse; I wonder what a chimpanzee would say to this? (163/2. According to Owen the sub-class Archencephala contains only the genus Homo: the Gyrencephala contains both chimpanzee and horse, the Lyencephala contains Ornithorhynchus.)

What a great issue of the "Linnean Journal!" Owen's paper is impressive; however, I can’t accept that humans and chimpanzees are as different as a platypus and a horse. I wonder what a chimpanzee would think about this? (163/2. According to Owen, the sub-class Archencephala contains only the genus Homo; the Gyrencephala includes both chimpanzees and horses, while the Lyencephala contains the platypus.)

LETTER 164. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down {February?} 26th, 1863.

I have just finished with very great interest "Man's Place." (164/1. "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," 1863 (preface dated January 1863).) I never fail to admire the clearness and condensed vigour of your style, as one calls it, but really of your thought. I have no criticisms; nor is it likely that I could have. But I think you could have added some interesting matter on the character or disposition of the young ourangs which have been kept in France and England. I should have thought you might have enlarged a little on the later embryological changes in man and on his rudimentary structure, tail as compared with tail of higher monkeys, intermaxillary bone, false ribs, and I daresay other points, such as muscles of ears, etc., etc. I was very much struck with admiration at the opening pages of Part II. (and oh! what a delicious sneer, as good as a dessert, at page 106) (164/2. Huxley, op. cit., page 106. After saying that "there is but one hypothesis regarding the origin of species of animals in general which has any scientific existence—that propounded by Mr. Darwin," and after a few words on Lamarck, he goes on: "And though I have heard of the announcement of a formula touching 'the ordained continuous becoming of organic forms,' it is obvious that it is the first duty of a hypothesis to be intelligible, and that a qua-qua-versal proposition of this kind, which may be read backwards or forwards, or sideways, with exactly the same amount of significance, does not really exist, though it may seem to do so." The "formula" in question is Owen's.): but my admiration is unbounded at pages 109 to 112. I declare I never in my life read anything grander. Bacon himself could not have charged a few paragraphs with more condensed and cutting sense than you have done. It is truly grand. I regret extremely that you could not, or did not, end your book (not that I mean to say a word against the Geological History) with these pages. With a book, as with a fine day, one likes it to end with a glorious sunset. I congratulate you on its publication; but do not be disappointed if it does not sell largely: parts are highly scientific, and I have often remarked that the best books frequently do not get soon appreciated: certainly large sale is no proof of the highest merit. But I hope it may be widely distributed; and I am rejoiced to see in your note to Miss Rhadamanthus (164/3. This refers to Mr. Darwin's daughter (now Mrs. Litchfield), whom Mr. Huxley used to laugh at for the severity of her criticisms.) that a second thousand is called for of the little book. What a letter that is of Owen's in the "Athenaeum" (164/4. A letter by Owen in the "Athenaeum," February 21st, 1863, replying to strictures on his treatment of the brain question, which had appeared in Lyell's "Antiquity of Man."); how cleverly he will utterly muddle and confound the public. Indeed he quite muddled me, till I read again your "concise statement" (164/5. This refers to a section (pages 113-18) in "Man's Place in Nature," headed "A succinct History of the Controversy respecting the Cerebral Structure of Man and the Apes." Huxley follows the question from Owen's attempt to classify the mammalia by cerebral characters, published by the "Linn. Soc." in 1857, up to his revival of the subject at the Cambridge meeting of the British Association in 1862. It is a tremendous indictment of Owen, and seems to us to conclude not unfittingly with a citation from Huxley's article in the "Medical Times," October 11th, 1862. Huxley here points out that special investigations have been made into the question at issue "during the last two years" by Allen Thomson, Rolleston, Marshall, Flower, Schroeder van der Kolk and Vrolik, and that "all these able and conscientious observers" have testified to the accuracy of his statements, "while not a single anatomist, great or small, has supported Professor Owen." He sums up the case once more, and concludes: "The question has thus become one of personal veracity. For myself I will accept no other issue than this, grave as it is, to the present controversy.") (which is capitally clear), and then I saw that my suspicion was true that he has entirely changed his ground to size of Brain. How candid he shows himself to have taken the slipped Brain! (164/6. Owen in the "Athenaeum," February 21st, 1863, admits that in the brain which he used in illustration of his statements "the cerebral hemispheres had glided forward and apart behind so as to expose a portion of the cerebellum.") I am intensely curious to see whether Lyell will answer. (164/7. Lyell's answer was in the "Athenaeum" March 7th, 1863.) Lyell has been, I fear, rather rash to enter on a subject on which he of course knows nothing by himself. By heavens, Owen will shake himself, when he sees what an antagonist he has made for himself in you. With hearty admiration, Farewell.

I just finished reading "Man's Place." (164/1. "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," 1863 (preface dated January 1863).) I always admire the clarity and powerful conciseness of your writing, which really reflects your thinking. I have no criticisms; I doubt I could even come up with any. However, I think you could have included some interesting information about the behavior or temperament of the young orangutans kept in France and England. I would have thought you might have expanded a bit on the later embryological developments in humans and their vestigial structures, like the tail compared to that of more advanced monkeys, the intermaxillary bone, false ribs, and probably other aspects like ear muscles, etc. I was truly impressed by the opening pages of Part II. (and oh! what a delightful jab, as satisfying as dessert, on page 106) (164/2. Huxley, op. cit., page 106. After stating that "there is only one hypothesis about the origin of species of animals in general that has any scientific validity—that proposed by Mr. Darwin," and after a few words on Lamarck, he continues: “And while I've heard of the announcement of a formula regarding 'the ordained continuous evolution of organic forms,' it's clear that the primary requirement for a hypothesis is to be understandable, and that a vague proposition like this, which can be read forwards, backwards, or sideways, with the same meaning, doesn’t truly exist, though it may appear to.” The "formula" in question is Owen's.): but my admiration is boundless at pages 109 to 112. I honestly have never read anything more impressive in my life. Bacon himself couldn't have packed paragraphs with more sharp and concise insight than you have. It's truly remarkable. I am really sorry that you couldn't, or didn't, conclude your book (not that I want to say anything against the Geological History) with these pages. With a book, as with a beautiful day, you prefer it to end with a glorious sunset. I congratulate you on its publication; but don’t be disappointed if it doesn’t sell well: some parts are highly scientific, and I've often noticed that the best books often take a while to be appreciated: certainly a large sale doesn’t guarantee the highest quality. But I hope it gets widely circulated; and I'm glad to see in your note to Miss Rhadamanthus (164/3. This refers to Mr. Darwin's daughter (now Mrs. Litchfield), whom Mr. Huxley often joked about for the severity of her critiques.) that a second thousand copies of the little book are needed. What an interesting letter from Owen in the "Athenaeum" (164/4. A letter by Owen in the "Athenaeum," February 21st, 1863, replying to critiques on his approach to the brain issue, which had appeared in Lyell's "Antiquity of Man."); how cleverly he will completely confuse the public. In fact, he almost confused me, until I reread your "concise statement" (164/5. This refers to a section (pages 113-18) in "Man's Place in Nature," titled "A Brief History of the Controversy Regarding the Cerebral Structure of Man and the Apes." Huxley follows the question from Owen's attempt to classify mammals by cerebral characteristics, published by the "Linn. Soc." in 1857, up to his revival of the topic at the Cambridge meeting of the British Association in 1862. It is a strong indictment of Owen, and it seems to conclude appropriately with a citation from Huxley's article in the "Medical Times," October 11th, 1862. Huxley points out that special investigations have been conducted into the question at hand "during the last two years" by Allen Thomson, Rolleston, Marshall, Flower, Schroeder van der Kolk, and Vrolik, and that "all these skilled and conscientious observers" have confirmed the accuracy of his statements, "while not a single anatomist, great or small, has supported Professor Owen." He summarizes the case again, concluding: "The question has thus become one of personal integrity. For myself, I will accept no other resolution than this, serious as it is, to the current controversy.") (which is excellently clear), and then I realized that my suspicion was correct that he has completely shifted his argument to brain size. How candid he has shown himself to be by using the flawed Brain! (164/6. Owen in the "Athenaeum," February 21st, 1863, admits that in the brain he used to illustrate his points "the cerebral hemispheres had slipped forward and apart, exposing part of the cerebellum.") I am very curious to see if Lyell will respond. (164/7. Lyell's response was in the "Athenaeum" March 7th, 1863.) Lyell has been, I fear, a bit reckless to tackle a topic he knows nothing about. I can only imagine how unsettled Owen will be when he realizes what an opponent he has made for himself in you. With sincere admiration, farewell.

I am fearfully disappointed at Lyell's excessive caution (164/8. In the "Antiquity of Man": see "Life and Letters," III., page 8.) in expressing any judgment on Species or {on the} origin of Man.

I am really disappointed by Lyell's extreme caution in expressing any judgment on Species or the origin of Man.

LETTER 165. TO JOHN SCOTT. Down, March 6th, 1863.

I thank you for your criticisms on the "Origin," and which I have not time to discuss; but I cannot help doubting, from your expression of an "INNATE...selective principle," whether you fully comprehend what is meant by Natural Selection. Certainly when you speak of weaker (i.e. less well adapted) forms crossing with the stronger, you take a widely different view from what I do on the struggle for existence; for such weaker forms could not exist except by the rarest chance. With respect to utility, reflect that 99/100ths part of the structure of each being is due to inheritance of formerly useful structures. Pray read what I have said on "correlation." Orchids ought to show us how ignorant we are of what is useful. No doubt hundreds of cases could be advanced of which no explanation could be offered; but I must stop. Your letter has interested me much. I am very far from strong, and have great fear that I must stop all work for a couple of months for entire rest, and leave home. It will be ruin to all my work.

I appreciate your feedback on the "Origin," but I don’t have time to discuss it right now. However, I can’t help but question your mention of an "INNATE...selective principle," as it makes me wonder whether you fully grasp the concept of Natural Selection. When you talk about weaker (i.e., less well-adapted) forms interbreeding with stronger ones, you have a very different perspective from mine regarding the struggle for existence, because those weaker forms couldn’t survive except by an incredibly rare chance. Regarding utility, keep in mind that 99 out of 100 parts of each being's structure come from inheriting features that were once useful. Please read what I wrote about "correlation." Orchids should remind us just how little we know about what is really useful. I'm sure there are countless examples that we can't explain, but I need to stop here. Your letter has captured my interest. I'm not feeling well and I'm very worried that I'll have to take a couple of months off for complete rest and leave home. This will be devastating for all my work.

LETTER 166. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 23rd {1863}.

The more I think of Falconer's letter (166/1. Published in the "Athenaeum" April 4th, 1863, page 459. The writer asserts that Lyell did not make it clear that certain material made use of in the "Antiquity of Man" was supplied by the original work of Mr. Prestwich and himself. (See "Life and Letters," III., page 19.)) the more grieved I am; he and Prestwich (the latter at least must owe much to the "Principles") assume an absurdly unwarrantable position with respect to Lyell. It is too bad to treat an old hero in science thus. I can see from a note from Falconer (about a wonderful fossil Brazilian Mammal, well called Meso- or Typo-therium) that he expects no sympathy from me. He will end, I hope, by being sorry. Lyell lays himself open to a slap by saying that he would come to show his original observations, and then not distinctly doing so; he had better only have laid claim, on this one point of man, to verification and compilation.

The more I think about Falconer's letter (166/1. Published in the "Athenaeum" April 4th, 1863, page 459. The writer claims that Lyell didn't make it clear that some material used in the "Antiquity of Man" came from the original work of Mr. Prestwich and himself. (See "Life and Letters," III., page 19.)) the more upset I feel; he and Prestwich (at least Prestwich owes a lot to the "Principles") are taking an absurdly unjust position regarding Lyell. It’s disappointing to treat an old hero in science this way. I can tell from a note from Falconer (about a remarkable fossil Brazilian Mammal, aptly named Meso- or Typo-therium) that he doesn’t expect any sympathy from me. I hope he ends up regretting it. Lyell leaves himself open to criticism by saying he would come to present his original observations, and then not doing so distinctly; he should have just claimed verification and compilation on this one point about mankind.

Altogether, I much like Lyell's letter. But all this squabbling will greatly sink scientific men. I have seen a sneer already in the "Times."

Overall, I really appreciate Lyell's letter. But all this arguing will seriously damage the reputation of scientists. I’ve already noticed some sarcasm in the "Times."

LETTER 167. TO H.W. BATES. At Rev. C. Langton, Hartfield, Tunbridge Wells, April 30th {1863}.

You will have received before this the note which I addressed to Leicester, after finishing Volume I., and you will have received copies of my little review (167/1. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1863, page 219. A review of Bates' paper on Mimetic Butterflies.) of your paper...I have now finished Volume II., and my opinion remains the same—that you have written a truly admirable work (167/2. "The Naturalist on the Amazons," 1863.), with capital original remarks, first-rate descriptions, and the whole in a style which could not be improved. My family are now reading the book, and admire it extremely; and, as my wife remarks, it has so strong an air of truthfulness. I had a letter from a person the other day, unknown to you, full of praise of the book. I do hope it may get extensively heard of and circulated; but to a certain extent this, I think, always depends on chance.

You should have received the note I sent to Leicester after finishing Volume I, and you should have copies of my little review (167/1. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1863, page 219. A review of Bates' paper on Mimetic Butterflies.) of your paper. I have now completed Volume II, and my opinion hasn't changed— you've written a truly outstanding work (167/2. "The Naturalist on the Amazons," 1863.), with excellent original insights, top-notch descriptions, and a style that couldn't be better. My family is currently reading the book and loves it; as my wife pointed out, it has a strong sense of authenticity. I received a letter the other day from someone you don't know who praised the book wholeheartedly. I really hope it gains wide recognition and gets circulated, but I think this depends on chance to some degree.

I suppose the clicking noise of surprise made by the Indian is that which the end of the tongue, applied to the palate of the mouth and suddenly withdrawn, makes?

I guess the surprising clicking sound made by the Indian is the same as the sound produced when the tip of the tongue touches the roof of the mouth and is quickly pulled away?

I have not written since receiving your note of April 20th, in which you confided in me and told me your prospects. I heartily wish they were better, and especially more certain; but with your abilities and powers of writing it will be strange if you cannot add what little you require for your income. I am glad that you have got a retired and semi-rural situation. What a grand ending you give to your book, contrasting civilisation and wild life! I quite regret that I have finished it: every evening it was a real treat to me to have my half-hour in the grand Amazonian forest, and picture to myself your vivid descriptions. There are heaps of facts of value to me in a natural history point of view. It was a great misfortune that you were prevented giving the discussion on species. But you will, I hope, be able to give your views and facts somewhere else.

I haven't written since I got your note on April 20th, where you opened up about your situation and prospects. I truly wish they were better, especially more certain; but with your skills and writing ability, it would be surprising if you couldn't find a little more to supplement your income. I'm glad you've found a quiet, semi-rural place to be. What an amazing ending you have for your book, highlighting the contrast between civilization and the wild! I really regret finishing it; every evening was a genuine pleasure for me to spend half an hour in the magnificent Amazonian forest, imagining your vivid descriptions. There are so many valuable facts from a natural history standpoint. It was a shame you couldn't present the discussion on species. However, I hope you'll be able to share your thoughts and findings elsewhere.

LETTER 168. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 15th {1863}.

Your letter received this morning interested me more than even most of your letters, and that is saying a good deal. I must scribble a little on several points. About Lyell and species—you put the whole case, I do believe, when you say that he is "half-hearted and whole-headed." (168/1. Darwin's disappointment with the cautious point of view taken up by Lyell in the "Antiquity of Man" is illustrated in the "Life and Letters," III., pages 11, 13. See also Letter 164, page 239.) I wrote to A. Gray that, when I saw such men as Lyell and he refuse to judge, it put me in despair, and that I sometimes thought I should prefer that Lyell had judged against modification of species rather than profess inability to decide; and I left him to apply this to himself. I am heartily rejoiced to hear that you intend to try to bring L. and F. (168/2. Falconer claimed that Lyell had not "done justice to the part he took in resuscitating the cave question." See "Life and Letters," III., page 14.) together again; but had you not better wait till they are a little cooled? You will do Science a real good service. Falconer never forgave Lyell for taking the Purbeck bones from him and handing them over to Owen.

Your letter, which I received this morning, caught my attention more than most of your letters, and that says a lot. I need to jot down a few thoughts on several points. Regarding Lyell and species—you really summed it up when you said he is "half-hearted and whole-headed." I told A. Gray that when I see respected people like Lyell and him refuse to take a stand, it leaves me feeling hopeless, and I sometimes think I'd rather see Lyell outright reject the idea of species changing than claim he can't decide. I left it to him to reflect on that. I'm really glad to hear you're planning to try to reconcile L. and F., but wouldn’t it be better to wait until things have cooled off a bit? You’ll be doing a real service to Science. Falconer never forgave Lyell for taking the Purbeck bones from him and giving them to Owen.

With respect to island floras, if I understand rightly, we differ almost solely how plants first got there. I suppose that at long intervals, from as far back as later Tertiary periods to the present time, plants occasionally arrived (in some cases, perhaps, aided by different currents from existing currents and by former islands), and that these old arrivals have survived little modified on the islands, but have become greatly modified or become extinct on the continent. If I understand, you believe that all islands were formerly united to continents, and then received all their plants and none since; and that on the islands they have undergone less extinction and modification than on the continent. The number of animal forms on islands, very closely allied to those on continents, with a few extremely distinct and anomalous, does not seem to me well to harmonise with your supposed view of all having formerly arrived or rather having been left together on the island.

Regarding island plant life, if I understand correctly, our main difference lies in how the plants first arrived there. I think that at long intervals, stretching back to the later Tertiary periods and continuing to today, plants made their way to the islands (sometimes with help from different currents than we see now and from former islands), and these ancient arrivals have mostly remained unchanged on the islands, while they have either drastically changed or gone extinct on the mainland. If I’m right, you believe that all islands were once connected to continents and received all their plants at once, without any new arrivals since then; and that on the islands, there’s been less extinction and modification compared to the mainland. The variety of animal species on islands, which are very closely related to those on the mainland with a few that are quite unique, doesn’t seem to fit well with your idea that all these species arrived together or were left on the island.

LETTER 169. TO ASA GRAY. Down, May 31st {1863?}.

I was very glad to receive your review (169/1. The review on De Candolle's work on the Oaks (A. Gray's "Scientific Papers," I., page 130).) of De Candolle a week ago. It seems to me excellent, and you speak out, I think, more plainly in favour of derivation of species than hitherto, though doubtfully about Natural Selection. Grant the first, I am easy about the second. Do you not consider such cases as all the orchids next thing to a demonstration against Heer's view of species arising suddenly by monstrosities?—it is impossible to imagine so many co-adaptations being formed all by a chance blow. Of course creationists would cut the enigma.

I was really happy to get your review (169/1. The review on De Candolle's work on the Oaks (A. Gray's "Scientific Papers," I., page 130).) of De Candolle a week ago. I think it's excellent, and you seem to express your support for the derivation of species more clearly than before, although you're still a bit uncertain about Natural Selection. If we accept the first point, I’m not worried about the second. Don't you think that cases like the orchids strongly argue against Heer's view that species suddenly arise from monstrosities? It's hard to believe so many co-adaptations could form by pure chance. Of course, creationists would have a different take on it.

LETTER 170. TO T.H. HUXLEY. June 27th {1863?}

What are you doing now? I have never yet got hold of the "Edinburgh Review," in which I hear you are well abused. By the way, I heard lately from Asa Gray that Wyman was delighted at "Man's Place." (170/1. "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," by T.H. Huxley, 1863.) I wonder who it is who pitches weakly, but virulently into you, in the "Anthropological Review." How quiet Owen seems! I do at last begin to believe that he will ultimately fall in public estimation. What nonsense he wrote in the "Athenaeum" (170/2. "Athenaeum," March 28th, 1863. See "Life and Letters," III., page 17.) on Heterogeny! I saw in his Aye-Aye (170/3. See Owen in the "Trans. Zool. Soc." Volume V. The sentence referred to seems to be the following (page 95): "We know of no changes in progress in the Island of Madagascar, necessitating a special quest of wood-boring larvae by small quadrupeds of the Lemurine or Sciurine types of organisation.') paper (I think) that he sneers at the manner in which he supposes that we should account for the structure of its limbs; and asks how we know that certain insects had increased in the Madagascar forests. Would it not be a good rebuff to ask him how he knows there were trees at all on the leafless plains of La Plata for his Mylodons to tear down? But I must stop, for if I once begin about {him} there will be no end. I was disappointed in the part about species in Lyell. (170/4. Lyell's "Antiquity of Man." See "Life and Letters," III., page 11.) You and Hooker are the only two bold men. I have had a bad spring and summer, almost constantly very unwell; but I am crawling on in my book on "Variation under Domestication.")

What are you up to now? I still haven’t seen the “Edinburgh Review,” where I hear you get criticized pretty harshly. By the way, I recently heard from Asa Gray that Wyman was really pleased with “Man's Place.” (170/1. "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," by T.H. Huxley, 1863.) I wonder who’s going after you so weakly but viciously in the “Anthropological Review.” Owen seems so calm! I’m starting to believe he’ll eventually lose public favor. What nonsense he wrote in the “Athenaeum” (170/2. "Athenaeum," March 28th, 1863. See "Life and Letters," III., page 17.) about Heterogeny! I saw in his Aye-Aye (170/3. See Owen in the "Trans. Zool. Soc." Volume V. The sentence referred to seems to be the following (page 95): "We know of no changes in progress in the Island of Madagascar, necessitating a special quest of wood-boring larvae by small quadrupeds of the Lemurine or Sciurine types of organisation.') paper (I think) where he mocks how we might explain the structure of its limbs, and questions how we know certain insects increased in the Madagascar forests. Wouldn’t it be a good comeback to ask him how he knows there were trees at all on the leafless plains of La Plata for his Mylodons to knock down? But I need to stop, because if I start talking about {him}, there will be no end. I was let down by the part about species in Lyell. (170/4. Lyell's "Antiquity of Man." See "Life and Letters," III., page 11.) You and Hooker are the only two brave ones. I’ve had a tough spring and summer, almost always feeling unwell; but I’m pushing through in my book on “Variation under Domestication.”

LETTER 171. TO C. LYELL. Down, August 14th {1863}.

Have you seen Bentham's remarks on species in his address to the Linnean Society? (171/1. Presidential address before the Linnean Society by G. Bentham ("Journ. Proc. Linn. Soc." Volume VII., page xi., 1864).) they have pleased me more than anything I have read for some time. I have no news, for I have not seen a soul for months, and have had a bad spring and summer, but have managed to do a good deal of work. Emma is threatening me to take me to Malvern, and perhaps I shall be compelled, but it is a horrid waste of time; you must have enjoyed North Wales, I should think, it is to me a most glorious country...

Have you seen Bentham's comments on species in his talk to the Linnean Society? (171/1. Presidential address before the Linnean Society by G. Bentham ("Journ. Proc. Linn. Soc." Volume VII., page xi., 1864).) They have impressed me more than anything I've read in a while. I don't have any news because I haven't seen anyone in months, and I've had a rough spring and summer, but I've managed to get a lot of work done. Emma is pushing me to go to Malvern, and I might have to, but it feels like a terrible use of time; I'm sure you've enjoyed North Wales, it seems like such a beautiful country to me...

If you have not read Bates' book (171/2. Henry Walter Bates, "The Naturalist on the River Amazons," 2 volumes, London, 1863. In a letter to Bates, April 18th, 1863, Darwin writes, "It is the best work of natural history travels ever published in England" ("Life and Letters," II., page 381.), I think it would interest you. He is second only to Humboldt in describing a tropical forest. (171/3. Quoted in "Life and Letters," II., page 381.). Talking of reading, I have never got the "Edinburgh" (171/4. The "Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man," by Sir Charles Lyell, and works by other authors reviewed in the "Edinburgh Review." Volume CXVIII., July 1863. The writer sums up his criticism as follows: "Glancing at the work of Sir Charles Lyell as a whole, it leaves the impression on our minds that we have been reading an ingenious academical thesis, rather than a work of demonstration by an original writer...There is no argument in it, and only a few facts which have not been stated elsewhere by Sir C. Lyell himself or by others" (loc. cit., page 294).), in which, I suppose, you are cut up.

If you haven't read Bates' book (171/2. Henry Walter Bates, "The Naturalist on the River Amazons," 2 volumes, London, 1863. In a letter to Bates on April 18, 1863, Darwin wrote, "It is the best work of natural history travels ever published in England" ("Life and Letters," II., page 381.), I think you'd find it interesting. He's second only to Humboldt in describing a tropical forest. (171/3. Quoted in "Life and Letters," II., page 381.). Speaking of reading, I still haven't gotten to the "Edinburgh" (171/4. The "Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man," by Sir Charles Lyell, and works by other authors reviewed in the "Edinburgh Review," Volume CXVIII., July 1863. The writer sums up his criticism as follows: "Glancing at the work of Sir Charles Lyell as a whole, it leaves the impression on our minds that we have been reading an ingenious academical thesis, rather than a work of demonstration by an original writer...There is no argument in it, and only a few facts that have not been stated elsewhere by Sir C. Lyell himself or by others" (loc. cit., page 294).), where, I suppose, you're getting a lot of criticism.

LETTER 172. TO H. FALCONER. December 26th {1863}.

Thank you for telling me about the Pliocene mammal, which is very remarkable; but has not Owen stated that the Pliocene badger is identical with the recent? Such a case does indeed well show the stupendous duration of the same form. I have not heard of Suess' pamphlet (172/1. Probably Suess's paper "Ueber die Verschiedenheit und die Aufeinanderfolge der tertiaren Land-faunen in der Niederung von Wien." "Sitz.-Ber. Wien Akad." XLVII., page 306, 1863.), and should much like to learn the title, if it can be procured; but I am on different subjects just at present. I should rather like to see it rendered highly probable that the process of formation of a new species was short compared to its duration—that is, if the process was allowed to be slow and long; the idea is new to me. Heer's view that new species are suddenly formed like monsters, I feel a conviction from many reasons is false.

Thank you for sharing information about the Pliocene mammal, which is truly fascinating; however, hasn't Owen mentioned that the Pliocene badger is the same as the modern one? Such a case does indeed illustrate the incredible length of time that the same form can persist. I haven't heard about Suess' pamphlet and would really like to know the title if it can be obtained; but I'm focused on different topics at the moment. I would prefer it to be shown as highly probable that the process of forming a new species is brief compared to its duration—that is, assuming the process is allowed to be slow and lengthy; this idea is new to me. Heer's perspective that new species are formed suddenly, like monsters, seems to me, for many reasons, to be incorrect.

CHAPTER 1.IV.—EVOLUTION, 1864-1869.

LETTER 173. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 1st, 1864.

I am still unable to write otherwise than by dictation. In a letter received two or three weeks ago from Asa Gray he writes: "I read lately with gusto Wallace's expose of the Dublin man on Bees' cells, etc." (173/1. "Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton's paper on the Bee's Cell and on the Origin of Species" ("Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." XII., 1863, page 303). Prof. Haughton's paper was read before the Natural History Society of Dublin, November 21st, 1862, and reprinted in the "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." XI., 1863, page 415. See Letters 73, 74, 75.) Now, though I cannot read at present, I much want to know where this is published, that I may procure a copy. Further on, Asa Gray says (after speaking of Agassiz's paper on Glaciers in the "Atlantic Magazine" and his recent book entitled "Method of Study"): "Pray set Wallace upon these articles." So Asa Gray seems to think much of your powers of reviewing, and I mention this as it assuredly is laudari a laudato. I hope you are hard at work, and if you are inclined to tell me, I should much like to know what you are doing. It will be many months, I fear, before I shall do anything.

I still can't write any other way than by dictation. In a letter I got a couple of weeks ago from Asa Gray, he mentioned, "I recently enjoyed reading Wallace's critique of the Dublin man on bees' cells, etc." (173/1. "Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton's paper on the Bee's Cell and on the Origin of Species" ("Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." XII., 1863, page 303). Prof. Haughton's paper was presented to the Natural History Society of Dublin on November 21st, 1862, and was reprinted in the "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." XI., 1863, page 415. See Letters 73, 74, 75.) Although I can't read right now, I really want to find out where this is published so I can get a copy. Later on, Asa Gray mentions (after discussing Agassiz's paper on glaciers in the "Atlantic Magazine" and his recent book titled "Method of Study"): "Please ask Wallace about these articles." It seems Asa Gray thinks highly of your reviewing skills, and I mention this because it surely is praise from someone who appreciates you. I hope you’re working hard, and if you're willing to share, I would love to know what you’re up to. I’m afraid it will be many months before I can do anything.

LETTER 174. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, March 27th {1864?}.

I had heard that your work was to be translated, and I heard it with pleasure; but I can take no share of credit, for I am not an active, only an honorary member of the Society. Since writing I have finished with extreme interest to the end your admirable work on metamorphosis. (174/1. Probably "Metamorphoses of Man and the Lower Animals." Translated by H. Lawson, 1864.) How well you are acquainted with the works of English naturalists, and how generously you bestow honour on them! Mr. Lubbock is my neighbour, and I have known him since he was a little boy; he is in every way a thoroughly good man; as is my friend Huxley. It gave me real pleasure to see you notice their works as you have done.

I heard that your work was going to be translated, and I was pleased to hear that; but I can't take any credit since I'm just an honorary member of the Society, not an active one. Since writing, I've finished your amazing work on metamorphosis with great interest. (174/1. Probably "Metamorphoses of Man and the Lower Animals." Translated by H. Lawson, 1864.) You have such a deep knowledge of the works of English naturalists and you honor them so generously! Mr. Lubbock is my neighbor, and I've known him since he was a little boy; he is truly a great person, just like my friend Huxley. It genuinely pleased me to see you acknowledge their works the way you did.

LETTER 175. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 11th {1864}.

I am very much obliged for your present of your "Comp. Anatomy." (175/1. "Lectures on the Elements of Comparative Anatomy," 1864.) When strong enough I am sure I shall read it with greatest interest. I could not resist the last chapter, of which I have read a part, and have been much interested about the "inspired idiot." (175/2. In reference to Oken (op. cit., page 282) Huxley says: "I must confess I never read his works without thinking of the epithet of 'inspired idiot' applied to our own Goldsmith.") If Owen wrote the article "Oken" (175/3. The article on Oken in the eighth edition of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is signed "R.O.": Huxley wrote to Darwin (April 18th, 1864), "There is not the smallest question that Owen wrote both the article 'Oken' and the 'Archetype' Book" (Huxley's "Life," I., page 250). Mr. Huxley's statements amount to this: (1) Prof. Owen accuses Goethe of having in 1820 appropriated Oken's theory of the skull, and of having given an apocryphal account of how the idea occurred to himself in 1790. (2) in the same article, page 502, Owen stated it to be questionable whether the discoverer of the true theory of the segmental constitution of the skull (i.e. himself) was excited to his labours, or "in any way influenced by the a priori guesses of Oken." On this Huxley writes, page 288: "But if he himself had not been in any way influenced by Oken, and if the 'Programm' {of Oken} is a mere mass of 'a priori guesses,' how comes it that only three years before Mr. Owen could write thus? 'Oken, ce genie profond et penetrant, fut le premier qui entrevit la verite, guide par l'heureuse idee de l'arrangement des os craniens en segments, comme ceux du rachis, appeles vertebres...'" Later on Owen wrote: "Cela servira pour exemple d'une examen scrupuleux des faits, d'une appreciation philosophique de leurs relations et analogies, etc." (From "Principes d'Osteologie comparee, ou Recherches sur l'Archetype," etc., pages 155, 1855). (3) Finally Huxley says, page 289, plainly: "The fact is that, so far from not having been 'in any way influenced' by Oken, Prof. Owen's own contributions to this question are the merest Okenism, remanie.") and the French work on the Archetype (points you do not put quite clearly), he never did a baser act...You are so good a Christian that you will hardly understand how I chuckle over this bit of baseness. I hope you keep well and hearty; I honour your wisdom at giving up at present Society for Science. But, on the other hand, I feel it in myself possible to get to care too much for Natural Science and too little for other things. I am getting better, I almost dare to hope permanently; for my sickness is decidedly less—for twenty-seven days consecutively I was sick many times daily, and lately I was five days free. I long to do a little work again. The magnificent (by far the most magnificent, and too magnificent) compliment which you paid me at the end of your "Origin of Species" (175/4. A title applied to the "Lectures to Working Men," that "green little book" referred to in Letter 156. Speaking of Mr. Darwin's work he says (page 156): "I believe that if you strip it of its theoretical part, it still remains one of the greatest encyclopaedias of biological doctrine that any one man ever brought forth; and I believe that, if you take it as the embodiment of an hypothesis, it is destined to be the guide of biological and psychological speculation for the next three or four generations.') I have met with reprinted from you two or three times lately.

I’m really grateful for your gift of "Comp. Anatomy." (175/1. "Lectures on the Elements of Comparative Anatomy," 1864.) When I’m strong enough, I know I’ll read it with great interest. I couldn't resist the last chapter, part of which I've read, and I found the section about the "inspired idiot" very intriguing. (175/2. Regarding Oken (op. cit., page 282), Huxley says: "I must confess I never read his works without thinking of the epithet of 'inspired idiot' applied to our own Goldsmith.") If Owen wrote the article "Oken" (175/3. The article on Oken in the eighth edition of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is signed "R.O.": Huxley wrote to Darwin (April 18th, 1864), "There is not the smallest question that Owen wrote both the article 'Oken' and the 'Archetype' Book" (Huxley's "Life," I., page 250). Mr. Huxley's statements are summarized as follows: (1) Prof. Owen accused Goethe of having appropriated Oken's theory of the skull in 1820 and claimed that Goethe provided a fabricated account of how he came up with the idea in 1790. (2) In the same article, page 502, Owen questioned whether he himself (the true discoverer of the segmental structure of the skull) was inspired in his work or "in any way influenced by the a priori guesses of Oken." Huxley responds on page 288: "But if he himself had not been influenced by Oken, and if Oken's 'Programm' is just a collection of 'a priori guesses,' how is it that only three years earlier Mr. Owen wrote this? 'Oken, that profound and penetrating genius, was the first to glimpse the truth, guided by the fortunate idea of arranging cranial bones in segments, like those of the spine, called vertebrae...'" Later, Owen wrote: "This will serve as an example of a scrupulous examination of facts, a philosophical appreciation of their relationships and analogies, etc." (From "Principes d'Osteologie comparee, ou Recherches sur l'Archetype," etc., pages 155, 1855). (3) Finally, Huxley states clearly on page 289: "The fact is that, far from not having been 'in any way influenced' by Oken, Prof. Owen's own contributions to this issue are the barest Okenism, remanie.") and the French work on the Archetype (points you don’t articulate very clearly), he never committed a worse act...You are such a good Christian that it’s hard for you to understand how I can chuckle over this bit of dishonesty. I hope you’re doing well and staying healthy; I respect your wisdom in stepping back from Society for Science for now. However, I feel myself getting too attached to Natural Science and neglecting other matters. I’m improving, and I dare to hope it’s for the long term; my illness has definitely lessened—after being sick many times daily for twenty-seven days in a row, I was recently free of illness for five days. I’m eager to get back to doing some work. The magnificent (by far the most magnificent, and too magnificent) compliment you paid me at the end of your "Origin of Species" (175/4. A title applied to the "Lectures to Working Men," that "green little book" referred to in Letter 156. Speaking of Mr. Darwin's work he says (page 156): "I believe that if you strip it of its theoretical part, it still remains one of the greatest encyclopedias of biological doctrine that any one man ever brought forth; and I believe that, if you take it as the embodiment of an hypothesis, it is destined to be the guide of biological and psychological speculation for the next three or four generations.') I’ve come across that compliment from you a couple of times recently.

LETTER 175A. TO ERASMUS DARWIN. Down, June 30th, 1864.

(175A.1. The preceding letter contains a reference to the prolonged period of ill-health which Darwin suffered in 1863 and 1864, and in this connection the present letter is of interest.

(175A.1. The previous letter mentions the lengthy period of poor health that Darwin experienced in 1863 and 1864, and in this context, the current letter is significant.)

The Copley Medal was given to him in 1864.)

The Copley Medal was awarded to him in 1864.

I had not heard a word about the Copley Medal. Please give Falconer my cordial thanks for his interest about me. I enclose the list of everything published by me except a few unimportant papers. Ask Falconer not to mention that I sent the list, as some one might say I had been canvassing, which is an odious imputation. The origin of the Voyage in the "Beagle" was that Fitz-Roy generously offered to give up half his cabin to any one who would volunteer to go as naturalist. Beaufort wrote to Cambridge, and I volunteered. Fitz-Roy never persuaded me to give up the voyage on account of sickness, nor did I ever think of doing so, though I suffered considerably; but I do not believe it was the cause of my subsequent ill-health, which has lost me so many years, and therefore I should not think the sea-sickness was worth notice. It would save you trouble to forward this with my kindest remembrances to Falconer.

I hadn’t heard anything about the Copley Medal. Please send Falconer my warm thanks for his interest in me. I’m including a list of everything I've published except for a few minor papers. Please ask Falconer not to mention that I sent the list, as someone might accuse me of trying to promote myself, which is a terrible assumption. The origin of the Voyage on the "Beagle" was that Fitz-Roy generously offered to give up half of his cabin to anyone who would volunteer as a naturalist. Beaufort wrote to Cambridge, and I volunteered. Fitz-Roy never tried to convince me to skip the voyage due to illness, nor did I ever consider it, even though I suffered a lot; however, I don’t believe it caused my later health issues, which have taken away so many years from me, so I wouldn’t say the sea sickness was worth mentioning. It would help you if you could forward this with my best regards to Falconer.

(176/1. The following letter was the beginning of a correspondence with Mr. B.D. Walsh, whom C.V. Riley describes as "one of the ablest and most thorough entomologists of our time.")

(176/1. The following letter marked the start of a correspondence with Mr. B.D. Walsh, who C.V. Riley describes as "one of the most skilled and comprehensive entomologists of our time.")

LETTER 176. B.D. WALSH TO CHARLES DARWIN. Rock Island, Illinois, U.S., April 29th, 1864.

LETTER 176. B.D. WALSH TO CHARLES DARWIN. Rock Island, Illinois, U.S., April 29, 1864.

(176/2. The words in square brackets are restorations of parts torn off the original letter.)

More than thirty years ago I was introduced to you at your rooms in Christ's College by A.W. Grisebach, and had the pleasure of seeing your noble collection of British Coleoptera. Some years afterwards I became a Fellow of Trinity, and finally gave up my Fellowship rather than go into Orders, and came to this country. For the last five or six years I have been paying considerable attention to the insect fauna of the U.S., some of the fruits of which you will see in the enclosed pamphlets. Allow me to take this opportunity of thanking you for the publication of your "Origin of Species," which I read three years ago by the advice of a botanical friend, though I had a strong prejudice against what I supposed then to be your views. The first perusal staggered me, the second convinced me, and the oftener I read it the more convinced I am of the general soundness of your theory.

More than thirty years ago, A.W. Grisebach introduced me to you at your place in Christ's College, and I had the pleasure of seeing your impressive collection of British beetles. A few years later, I became a Fellow of Trinity, but eventually chose to give up my Fellowship instead of becoming ordained, and came to this country. For the past five or six years, I have been focusing a lot on the insect fauna of the U.S., and some of my findings are included in the enclosed pamphlets. I want to take this chance to thank you for publishing your "Origin of Species," which I read three years ago on the recommendation of a botanical friend, despite my initial strong bias against what I thought were your views. The first time I read it, I was shocked; the second time, I was convinced. The more I read it, the more I believe in the overall validity of your theory.

As you have called upon naturalists that believe in your views to give public testimony of their convictions, I have directed your attention on the outside of one or two of my pamphlets to the particular passages in which {I} have done so. You will please accept these papers from me in token of my respect and admiration.

As you’ve requested naturalists who share your views to publicly testify about their beliefs, I’ve pointed out on the outside of one or two of my pamphlets the specific passages where I’ve done this. Please accept these papers from me as a sign of my respect and admiration.

As you may see from the latest of these papers, I {have} recently made the remarkable discover that there {are the} so-called "three sexes" not only in social insects but {also in the} strictly solitary genus Cynips.

As you can see from the latest of these papers, I have recently made the remarkable discovery that there are the so-called "three sexes" not only in social insects but also in the strictly solitary genus Cynips.

When is your great work to make its appearance? {I should be} much pleased to receive a few lines from you.

When is your great work going to be published? I would love to get a few lines from you.

LETTER 177. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, October 21st {1864}.

Ill-health has prevented me from sooner thanking you for your very kind letter and several memoirs.

Illness has kept me from thanking you sooner for your very kind letter and the several memoirs.

I have been very much pleased to see how boldly and clearly you speak out on the modification of species. I thank you for giving me the pages of reference; but they were superfluous, for I found so many original and profound remarks that I have carefully looked through all the papers. I hope that your discovery about the Cynips (177/1. "On Dimorphism in the hymenopterous genus Cynips," "Proc. Entom. Soc. Philadelphia," March, 1864. Mr. Walsh's view is that Cynips quercus aciculata is a dimorphous form of Cynips q. spongifica, and occurs only as a female. Cynips q. spongifica also produces spongifica females and males from other galls at a different time of year.) will hold good, for it is a remarkable one, and I for one have often marvelled what could be the meaning of the case. I will lend your paper to my neighbour Mr. Lubbock, who I know is much interested in the subject. Incidentally I shall profit by your remarks on galls. If you have time I think a rather hopeless experiment would be worth trying; anyhow, I should have tried it had my health permitted. It is to insert a minute grain of some organic substance, together with the poison from bees, sand-wasps, ichneumons, adders, and even alkaloid poisons into the tissues of fitting plants for the chance of monstrous growths being produced. (177/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 346, for an account of experiments attempted in this direction by Mr. Darwin in 1880. On the effects of injuring plant-tissues, see Massart, "La Cicatrisation, etc." in Tome LVII. of the "Memoires Couronnes" of the Brussels Academy.)

I have been really pleased to see how boldly and clearly you speak out about the modification of species. Thank you for providing the reference pages; they weren't necessary since I found so many original and insightful remarks that I carefully reviewed all the papers. I hope your discovery about the Cynips will hold up, as it's remarkable, and I have often wondered what the meaning of that case could be. I'll lend your paper to my neighbor Mr. Lubbock, who I know is very interested in the topic. By the way, I’ll benefit from your comments on galls. If you have time, I think a rather ambitious experiment would be worth trying; in any case, I would have attempted it if my health allowed. It's about inserting a tiny grain of some organic substance, along with the poison from bees, sand-wasps, ichneumons, adders, and even alkaloid poisons into the tissues of appropriate plants for the chance of creating monstrous growths.

My health has long been poor, and I have lately suffered from a long illness which has interrupted all work, but I am now recommencing a volume in connection with the "Origin."

My health has been bad for a while, and recently I've been dealing with a long illness that has stopped all my work, but I'm now starting to work on a volume related to the "Origin."

P.S.—If you write again I should very much like to hear what your life in your new country is.

P.S.—If you write again, I’d really like to hear about your life in your new country.

What can be the meaning or use of the great diversity of the external generative organs in your cases, in Bombus, and the phytophagous coleoptera?

What could the meaning or purpose be of the wide variety of external reproductive organs in your examples, in Bombus, and the plant-eating beetles?

What can there be in the act of copulation necessitating such complex and diversified apparatus?

What could possibly require such a complex and varied setup for the act of sex?

LETTER 178. TO W.H. FLOWER. Down, July 11th, 1864.

I am truly obliged for all the trouble which you have taken for me, and for your very interesting note. I had only vaguely heard it said that frogs had a rudiment of a sixth toe; had I known that such great men had looked to the point I should not have dreamed of looking myself. The rudiment sent to you was from a full-grown frog; so that if these bones are the two cuneiforms they must, I should think, be considered to be in a rudimentary condition. This afternoon my gardener brought in some tadpoles with the hind-legs alone developed, and I looked at the rudiment. At this age it certainly looks extremely like a digit, for the extremity is enlarged like that of the adjoining real toe, and the transverse articulation seems similar. I am sorry that the case is doubtful, for if these batrachians had six toes, I certainly think it would have thrown light on the truly extraordinary strength of inheritance in polydactylism in so many animals, and especially on the power of regeneration in amputated supernumerary digits. (178/1. In the first edition of "Variation under Domestication" the view here given is upheld, but in the second edition (Volume I., page 459) Darwin withdrew his belief that the development of supernumerary digits in man is "a case of reversion to a lowly-organised progenitor provided with more than five digits." See Letters 161, 270.)

I really appreciate all the effort you’ve put in for me and for your fascinating note. I had only heard vaguely that frogs have a hint of a sixth toe; if I had known that such prominent figures had already investigated this, I wouldn’t have thought of looking into it myself. The rudiment I sent you came from a fully grown frog, so if these bones are the two cuneiforms, they should probably be considered in a rudimentary state. This afternoon, my gardener brought in some tadpoles that only have their hind legs developed, and I examined the rudiment. At this stage, it definitely looks very much like a digit, since the tip is swollen like the neighboring actual toe, and the cross joint seems similar. I'm disappointed that the case is uncertain because if these amphibians had six toes, I believe it would have shed light on the remarkable strength of inheritance in polydactylism in so many animals, especially regarding the regeneration ability in amputated extra digits. (178/1. In the first edition of "Variation under Domestication," this perspective is supported, but in the second edition (Volume I., page 459), Darwin retracted his belief that the emergence of extra digits in humans is "a case of reversion to a lowly-organised ancestor with more than five digits." See Letters 161, 270.)

LETTER 179. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {October 22nd, 1864}.

The Lyells have been here, and were extremely pleasant, but I saw them only occasionally for ten minutes, and when they went I had an awful day {of illness}; but I am now slowly getting up to my former standard. I shall soon be confined to a living grave, and a fearful evil it is.

The Lyells visited and were really nice, but I only saw them for about ten minutes now and then. After they left, I had a terrible day {of illness}; however, I'm gradually getting back to my usual self. Soon, I'll be stuck in a living grave, and it's a horrible situation.

I suppose you have read Tyndall. (179/1. Probably Tyndall "On the Conformation of the Alps" ("Phil. Mag." 1864, page 255).) I have now come round again to Ramsay's view, (179/2. "Phil. Mag." 1864, page 293.) for the third or fourth time; but Lyell says when I read his discussion in the "Elements," I shall recant for the fifth time. (179/3. This refers to a discussion on the "Connection of the predominance of Lakes with Glacial Action" ("Elements," Edition VI., pages 168-74). Lyell adheres to the views expressed in the "Antiquity of Man" (1863) against Ramsay's theory of the origin of lake basins by ice action.) What a capital writer Tyndall is!

I guess you’ve read Tyndall. (179/1. Probably Tyndall "On the Conformation of the Alps" ("Phil. Mag." 1864, page 255).) I've come around to Ramsay's view again, (179/2. "Phil. Mag." 1864, page 293.) for the third or fourth time; but Lyell says that when I read his discussion in the "Elements," I’ll change my mind for the fifth time. (179/3. This refers to a discussion on the "Connection of the predominance of Lakes with Glacial Action" ("Elements," Edition VI., pages 168-74). Lyell stands by the views expressed in the "Antiquity of Man" (1863) against Ramsay's theory about how lake basins are formed by ice action.) What a fantastic writer Tyndall is!

In your last note you ask what the Bardfield oxlip is. It is P. elatior of Jacq., which certainly looks, when growing, to common eyes different from the common oxlip. I will fight you to the death that as primrose and cowslip are different in appearance (not to mention odour, habitat and range), and as I can now show that, when they cross, the intermediate offspring are sterile like ordinary hybrids, they must be called as good species as a man and a gorilla.

In your last message, you asked what the Bardfield oxlip is. It's P. elatior of Jacq., which definitely looks different from the common oxlip to the average person. I will argue fiercely that just like primroses and cowslips look different (not to mention their smell, habitat, and distribution), and since I can now demonstrate that their hybrids are sterile like typical hybrids, they should be recognized as separate species just like a man and a gorilla.

I agree that if Scott's red cowslip grew wild or spread itself and did not vary {into} common cowslip (and we have absolutely no proof of primrose or cowslip varying into each other), and as it will not cross with the cowslip, it would be a perfectly good species. The power of remaining for a good long period constant I look at as the essence of a species, combined with an appreciable amount of difference; and no one can say there is not this amount of difference between primrose and oxlip.

I believe that if Scott's red cowslip grew in the wild or spread naturally without changing into common cowslip (and we have no evidence of primrose or cowslip transforming into one another), and since it doesn’t crossbreed with the cowslip, it would be a valid species. I see the ability to remain stable for a long time as the core of what defines a species, along with a significant amount of difference; and no one can argue that there isn’t a substantial difference between primrose and oxlip.

(PLATE: HUGH FALCONER, 1844. From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.)

LETTER 180. HUGH FALCONER TO W. SHARPEY.

(180/1. Falconer had proposed Darwin for the Copley Medal of the Royal Society (which was awarded to him in 1864), but being detained abroad, he gave his reasons for supporting Darwin for this honour in a letter to Sharpey, the Secretary of the Royal Society. A copy of the letter here printed seems to have been given to Erasmus Darwin, and by him shown to his brother Charles.)

(180/1. Falconer had nominated Darwin for the Copley Medal of the Royal Society (which he received in 1864), but since he was stuck overseas, he explained his reasons for supporting Darwin for this honor in a letter to Sharpey, the Secretary of the Royal Society. A copy of the letter printed here appears to have been given to Erasmus Darwin, who then showed it to his brother Charles.)

Montauban, October 25th, 1864.

Montauban, October 25, 1864.

Busk and myself have made every effort to be back in London by the 27th inst., but we have been persecuted by mishaps—through the breakdown of trains, diligences, etc., so that we have been sadly put out in our reckoning—and have lost some of the main objects that brought us round by this part of France—none of which were idle or unimportant.

Busk and I have done everything we can to be back in London by the 27th of this month, but we’ve faced a series of unfortunate events—like train and coach breakdowns—so we’ve been seriously delayed in our plans and have missed some of the key reasons that brought us to this part of France—none of which were trivial or unimportant.

Busk started yesterday for Paris from Bruniquel, to make sure of being present at the meeting of the Royal Council on Thursday. He will tell you that there were strong reasons for me remaining behind him. But as I seconded the proposal of Mr. Darwin for the Copley Medal, in default of my presence at the first meeting, I beg that you will express my great regrets to the President and Council at not being there, and that I am very reluctantly detained. I shall certainly be in London (D.V.) by the second meeting on the 3rd proximo. Meanwhile I solicit the favour of being heard, through you, respecting the grounds upon which I seconded Mr. Darwin's nomination for the Copley Medal.

Busk left yesterday for Paris from Bruniquel to make sure he's there for the Royal Council meeting on Thursday. He'll explain that there were solid reasons for me to stay back. However, since I supported Mr. Darwin's proposal for the Copley Medal at the first meeting in my absence, I ask that you convey my sincere regrets to the President and Council for not being there, and that I'm reluctantly held back. I’ll definitely be in London (D.V.) by the second meeting on the 3rd of next month. In the meantime, I kindly request to be heard, through you, about the reasons I supported Mr. Darwin's nomination for the Copley Medal.

Referring to the classified list which I drew up of Mr. Darwin's scientific labours, ranging through the wide field of (1) Geology, (2) Physical Geography, (3) Zoology, (4) physiological Botany, (5) genetic Biology, and to the power with which he has investigated whatever subject he has taken up,—Nullum quod tetigit non ornavit,—I am of opinion that Mr. Darwin is not only one of the most eminent naturalists of his day, but that hereafter he will be regarded as one of the great naturalists of all countries and of all time. His early work on the structure and distribution of coral reefs constitutes an era in the investigation of the subject. As a monographic labour, it may be compared with Dr. Wells' "Essay upon Dew," as original, exhaustive, and complete—containing the closest observation with large and important generalisations.

Referring to the list I created of Mr. Darwin's scientific work, which covers a wide range of areas including (1) Geology, (2) Physical Geography, (3) Zoology, (4) Physiological Botany, and (5) Genetic Biology, as well as his remarkable ability to delve into any topic he chooses—Nullum quod tetigit non ornavit—I believe that Mr. Darwin is not only one of the most distinguished naturalists of his time but will also be seen in the future as one of the great naturalists from all countries and eras. His early research on the structure and distribution of coral reefs marks a significant milestone in studying the topic. As a monographic effort, it can be compared to Dr. Wells' "Essay upon Dew" for its originality, thoroughness, and completeness—featuring detailed observations alongside broad and significant conclusions.

Among the zoologists his monographs upon the Balanidae and Lepadidae, Fossil and Recent, in the Palaeontographical and Ray Societies' publications, are held to be models of their kind.

Among zoologists, his monographs on the Balanidae and Lepadidae, both Fossil and Recent, published in the Palaeontographical and Ray Societies, are regarded as excellent examples in their field.

In physiological Botany, his recent researches upon the dimorphism of the genital organs in certain plants, embodied in his papers in the "Linnean Journal," on Primula, Linum, and Lythrum, are of the highest order of importance. They open a new mine of observation upon a field which had been barely struck upon before. The same remark applies to his researches on the structure and various adaptations of the orchideous flower to a definite object connected with impregnation of the plants through the agency of insects with foreign pollen. There has not yet been time for their due influence being felt in the advancement of the science. But in either subject they constitute an advance per saltum. I need not dwell upon the value of his geological researches, which won for him one of the earlier awards of the Wollaston Medal from the Geological Society, the best of judges on the point.

In physiological Botany, his recent research on the dimorphism of the reproductive organs in certain plants, published in his papers in the "Linnean Journal" on Primula, Linum, and Lythrum, is extremely important. It opens up a new area of observation in a field that had hardly been explored before. The same goes for his research on the structure and various adaptations of the orchid flower to a specific purpose related to the fertilization of plants through the help of insects carrying foreign pollen. There hasn't been enough time for their full impact to be felt in advancing the science. However, in both subjects, they represent a significant leap forward. I don't need to elaborate on the significance of his geological research, which earned him one of the first Wollaston Medal awards from the Geological Society, a highly respected authority on the subject.

And lastly, Mr. Darwin's great essay on the "Origin of Species" by Natural Selection. This solemn and mysterious subject had been either so lightly or so grotesquely treated before, that it was hardly regarded as being within the bounds of legitimate philosophical investigation. Mr. Darwin, after twenty years of the closest study and research, published his views, and it is sufficient to say that they instantly fixed the attention of mankind throughout the civilised world. That the efforts of a single mind should have arrived at success on a subject of such vast scope, and encompassed with such difficulties, was more than could have been reasonably expected, and I am far from thinking that Charles Darwin has made out all his case. But he has treated it with such power and in such a philosophical and truth-seeking spirit, and illustrated it with such an amount of original and collated observation as fairly to have brought the subject within the bounds of rational scientific research. I consider this great essay on genetic Biology to constitute a strong additional claim on behalf of Mr. Darwin for the Copley Medal. (180/2. The following letter (December 3rd, 1864), from Mr. Huxley to Sir J.D. Hooker, is reprinted, by the kind permission of Mr. L. Huxley, from his father's "Life," I., page 255. Sabine's address (from the "Reader") is given in the "Life and Letters," III., page 28. In the "Proceedings of the Royal Society" the offending sentence is slightly modified. It is said, in Huxley's "Life" (loc. cit., note), that the sentence which follows it was introduced to mitigate the effect:—

And finally, Mr. Darwin's groundbreaking essay on the "Origin of Species" by Natural Selection. This serious and complex topic had either been treated too lightly or in such a bizarre way before that it was hardly seen as a legitimate area for philosophical investigation. After two decades of intense study and research, Mr. Darwin published his views, which quickly captured the attention of people all over the civilized world. For a single person to achieve success in such a vast and difficult subject was more than could be expected, and I don't believe that Charles Darwin proved his case entirely. However, he approached it with such strength and a philosophical, truth-seeking spirit, and backed it up with a significant amount of original and gathered observations that he genuinely brought the topic into the realm of rational scientific inquiry. I believe this remarkable essay on genetic biology strongly supports Mr. Darwin's candidacy for the Copley Medal. (180/2. The following letter (December 3rd, 1864) from Mr. Huxley to Sir J.D. Hooker is reprinted, with the kind permission of Mr. L. Huxley, from his father's "Life," I., page 255. Sabine's address (from the "Reader") is found in the "Life and Letters," III., page 28. In the "Proceedings of the Royal Society," the offending sentence is slightly altered. It is mentioned in Huxley's "Life" (loc. cit., note) that the following sentence was added to soften the impact:—

"I wish you had been at the anniversary meeting and dinner, because the latter was very pleasant, and the former, to me, very disagreeable. My distrust of Sabine is, as you know, chronic; and I went determined to keep careful watch on his address, lest some crafty phrase injurious to Darwin should be introduced. My suspicions were justified, the only part of the address {relating} to Darwin written by Sabine himself containing the following passage:

"I wish you could have been at the anniversary meeting and dinner because the dinner was quite enjoyable, while the meeting was, for me, very uncomfortable. My distrust of Sabine, as you know, is ongoing; and I went intent on closely monitoring his speech to make sure he didn’t slip in any clever phrases that could harm Darwin. My concerns were confirmed, as the only part of the speech about Darwin that Sabine himself wrote included the following passage:

"'Speaking generally and collectively, we have expressly omitted it {Darwin's theory} from the grounds of our award.'

"'In general terms, we've specifically excluded it {Darwin's theory} from the basis of our decision.'"

"Of course this would be interpreted by everybody as meaning that after due discussion, the council had formally resolved not only to exclude Darwin's theory from the grounds of the award, but to give public notice through the president that they had done so, and, furthermore, that Darwin's friends had been base enough to accept an honour for him on the understanding that in receiving it he should be publicly insulted!

"Of course, everyone would see this as meaning that after proper discussion, the council had officially decided not only to exclude Darwin's theory from the basis of the award but also to announce publicly through the president that they had done so. Moreover, it would imply that Darwin's friends were low enough to accept an honor for him with the understanding that receiving it would publicly insult him!"

"I felt that this would never do, and therefore, when the resolution for printing the address was moved, I made a speech, which I took care to keep perfectly cool and temperate, disavowing all intention of interfering with the liberty of the president to say what he pleased, but exercising my constitutional right of requiring the minutes of council making the award to be read, in order that the Society might be informed whether the conditions implied by Sabine had been imposed or not.

"I felt that this was unacceptable, so when the motion to print the address was brought up, I gave a speech, making sure to stay calm and respectful. I denied any intention of interfering with the president's freedom to express himself but asserted my constitutional right to have the minutes of the council reading the award shared, so the Society could know whether the conditions suggested by Sabine had been enforced or not."

"The resolution was read, and of course nothing of the kind appeared. Sabine didn't exactly like it, I believe. Both Busk and Falconer remonstrated against the passage to him, and I hope it will be withdrawn when the address is printed. If not, there will be an awful row, and I for one will show no mercy.")

"The resolution was read, and naturally nothing like it showed up. I think Sabine wasn’t too fond of it. Both Busk and Falconer protested against the section to him, and I hope it gets taken out when the address is published. If not, there will be a huge uproar, and I for one won’t hold back."

In forming an estimate of the value and extent of Mr. Darwin's researches, due regard ought to be had to the circumstances under which they have been carried out—a pressure of unremitting disease, which has latterly left him not more than one or two hours of the day which he could call his own.

In evaluating the value and scope of Mr. Darwin's research, we should consider the conditions under which he conducted them—constant health issues that have recently left him with only one or two hours a day to call his own.

LETTER 181. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 4th {1864}.

What a good kind friend you are! I know well that this medal must have cost you a deal of trouble. It is a very great honour to me, but I declare the knowledge that you and a few other friends have interested themselves on the subject is the real cream of the enjoyment to me; indeed, it is to me worth far more than many medals. So accept my true and cordial thanks. I hope that I may yet have strength to do a little more work in Natural Science, shaky and old though I be. I have chuckled and triumphed over your postscript about poor M. Brulle and his young pupils (181/1. The following is the postscript in a letter from Falconer to Darwin November 3rd {1864}: "I returned last night from Spain via France. On Monday I was at Dijon, where, while in the Museum, M. Brulle, Professor of Zoology, asked me what was my frank opinion of Charles Darwin's doctrine? He told me in despair that he could not get his pupils to listen to anything from him except a la Darwin! He, poor man, could not comprehend it, and was still unconvinced, but that all young Frenchmen would hear or believe nothing else.") About a week ago I had a nearly similar account from Germany, and at the same time I heard of some splendid converts in such men as Leuckart, Gegenbauer, etc. You may say what you like about yourself, but I look at a man who treats natural history in the same spirit with which you do, exactly as good, for what I believe to be the truth, as a convert.

What a wonderful friend you are! I know this medal must have taken you a lot of effort. It’s a great honor for me, but honestly, knowing that you and a few other friends care about this means even more to me; it’s worth way more than a bunch of medals. So please accept my sincere and heartfelt thanks. I hope I still have the energy to do a bit more work in Natural Science, even though I'm shaky and old. I couldn't help but laugh over your postscript about poor M. Brulle and his young students. About a week ago, I heard a similar story from Germany, and at the same time, I learned about some amazing supporters like Leuckart, Gegenbauer, and others. You can say what you want about yourself, but I see someone who approaches natural history with the same spirit you do as just as valid as a convert for what I believe to be the truth.

LETTER 182. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 8th {1864}.

Your remark on the relation of the award of the medal and the present outburst of bigotry had not occurred to me. It seems very true, and makes me the more gratified to receive it. General Sabine (182/1. See "Life and Letters," III., page 28.) wrote to me and asked me to attend at the anniversary, but I told him it was really impossible. I have never been able to conjecture the cause; but I find that on my good days, when I can write for a couple of hours, that anything which stirs me up like talking for half or even a quarter of an hour, generally quite prostrates me, sometimes even for a long time afterwards. I believe attending the anniversary would possibly make me seriously ill. I should enjoy attending and shaking you and a few of my other friends by the hand, but it would be folly even if I did not break down at the time. I told Sabine that I did not know who had proposed and seconded me for the medal, but that I presumed it was you, or Hooker or Busk, and that I felt sure, if you attended, you would receive the medal for me; and that if none of you attended, that Lyell or Huxley would receive it for me. Will you receive it, and it could be left at my brother's?

Your comment about how the medal relates to the current wave of bigotry hadn't crossed my mind. It really rings true, which makes me even more pleased to receive it. General Sabine (182/1. See "Life and Letters," III., page 28.) reached out and invited me to the anniversary, but I told him it was truly impossible for me to go. I've never figured out why, but I've noticed that on my good days, when I can write for a couple of hours, anything that gets me worked up, like talking for even just half or a quarter of an hour, usually leaves me completely exhausted, sometimes for a long time afterward. I think attending the anniversary could potentially make me quite unwell. I would love to be there and shake hands with you and a few other friends, but it would be reckless even if I didn't fall apart on the spot. I told Sabine that I didn't know who nominated me for the medal, but I assumed it was you, or Hooker or Busk, and that I was sure if you attended, you would accept the medal for me; and if none of you were there, then Lyell or Huxley would accept it for me. Would you be willing to take it, and could it be left at my brother's place?

Again accept my cordial and enduring thanks for all your kindness and sympathy.

Again, thank you so much for all your kindness and support.

LETTER 183. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, December 4th {1864}.

I have been greatly interested by your account of your American life. What an extraordinary and self-contained life you have led! and what vigour of mind you must possess to follow science with so much ardour after all that you have undergone! I am very much obliged to you for your pamphlet on Geographical Distribution, on Agassiz, etc. (183/1. Mr. Walsh's paper "On certain Entomological Speculations of the New England School of Entomologists" was published in the "Proc. Entomolog. Soc. of Philadelphia," September 1864, page 207.) I am delighted at the manner in which you have bearded this lion in his den. I agree most entirely with all that you have written. What I meant when I wrote to Agassiz to thank him for a bundle of his publications, was exactly what you suppose. (183/2. Namely, that Mr. Darwin, having been abused as an atheist, etc., by other writers, probably felt grateful to a writer who was willing to allow him "a spirit as reverential as his own." ("Methods of Study," Preface, page iv.) I confess, however, I did not fully perceive how he had misstated my views; but I only skimmed through his "Methods of Study," and thought it a very poor book. I am so much accustomed to be utterly misrepresented that it hardly excites my attention. But you really have hit the nail on the head capitally. All the younger good naturalists whom I know think of Agassiz as you do; but he did grand service about glaciers and fish. About the succession of forms, Pictet has given up his whole views, and no geologist now agrees with Agassiz. I am glad that you have attacked Dana's wild notions; {though} I have a great respect for Dana...If you have an opportunity, read in "Trans. Linn. Soc." Bates on "Mimetic Lepidoptera of Amazons." I was delighted with his paper.

I've been really interested in your story about your life in America. What an amazing and independent life you've lived! And what strength of mind you must have to pursue science so passionately after everything you've been through! Thank you for your pamphlet on Geographical Distribution, Agassiz, etc. I’m thrilled with how you tackled that big issue head-on. I completely agree with everything you've written. When I wrote to Agassiz to thank him for a bunch of his publications, what I meant was exactly what you think it was. I confess, though, I didn't fully realize how he misrepresented my views; I only skimmed through his "Methods of Study," and thought it was quite a poor book. I'm so used to being misrepresented that it hardly grabs my attention anymore. But you’ve really nailed it. All the younger good naturalists I know think of Agassiz the same way you do, but he did great work on glaciers and fish. Regarding the succession of forms, Pictet has completely changed his views, and no geologist now agrees with Agassiz. I'm glad you've challenged Dana's wild ideas; I have a lot of respect for Dana, though... If you get a chance, check out Bates on "Mimetic Lepidoptera of Amazons" in "Trans. Linn. Soc." I really enjoyed his paper.

I have got a notice of your views about the female Cynips inserted in the "Natural History Review" (183/3. "Nat. Hist. Review," January 1865, page 139. A notice by "J.L." (probably Lord Avebury) on Walsh's paper "On Dimorphism in the Hymenopterous Genus Cynips," in the "Proc. Entomolog. Soc. of Philadelphia," March, 1864.): whether the notice will be favourable, I do not know, but anyhow it will call attention to your views...

I received a notice about your thoughts on the female Cynips published in the "Natural History Review" (183/3. "Nat. Hist. Review," January 1865, page 139. A notice by "J.L." (likely Lord Avebury) regarding Walsh's paper "On Dimorphism in the Hymenopterous Genus Cynips," in the "Proc. Entomolog. Soc. of Philadelphia," March, 1864.). I’m not sure if the notice will be positive, but either way, it will draw attention to your ideas...

As you allude in your paper to the believers in change of species, you will be glad to hear that very many of the very best men are coming round in Germany. I have lately heard of Hackel, Gegenbauer, F. Muller, Leuckart, Claparede, Alex. Braun, Schleiden, etc. So it is, I hear, with the younger Frenchmen.

As you mention in your paper about those who believe in species change, you'll be pleased to know that many of the top thinkers in Germany are starting to agree. I've recently heard about Hackel, Gegenbauer, F. Muller, Leuckart, Claparede, Alex. Braun, Schleiden, and others. Apparently, the same is true for the younger generation in France.

LETTER 184. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 19th {1865}.

It is working hours, but I am trying to take a day's holiday, for I finished and despatched yesterday my Climbing paper. For the last ten days I have done nothing but correct refractory sentences, and I loathe the whole subject like tartar emetic. By the way, I am convinced that you want a holiday, and I think so because you took the devil's name in vain so often in your last note. Can you come here for Sunday? You know how I should like it, and you will be quiet and dull enough here to get plenty of rest. I have been thinking with regret about what you said in one of your later notes, about having neglected to make notes on the gradation of character in your genera; but would it be too late? Surely if you looked over names in series the facts would come back, and you might surely write a fine paper "On the gradation of important characters in the genera of plants." As for unimportant characters, I have made their perfect gradation a very prominent point with respect to the means of climbing, in my paper. I begin to think that one of the commonest means of transition is the same individual plant having the same part in different states: thus Corydalis claviculata, if you look to one leaf, may be called a tendril-bearer; if you look to another leaf it may be called a leaf-climber. Now I am sure I remember some cases with plants in which important parts such as the position of the ovule differ: differences in the spire of leaves on lateral and terminal branches, etc.

It’s work hours, but I’m trying to take a day off since I finished and sent out my Climbing paper yesterday. For the past ten days, I’ve only been correcting stubborn sentences, and I really dislike the entire topic. By the way, I’m sure you need a break too, mostly because you used the devil’s name so often in your last note. Can you come over on Sunday? You know how much I’d like it, and it’ll be quiet and dull enough here for you to get plenty of rest. I’ve been regretting what you mentioned in one of your recent notes about not making notes on character gradation in your genera; but is it too late? If you reviewed names in series, the facts would likely come back to you, and you could probably write a great paper titled "On the Gradation of Important Characters in the Genera of Plants." As for unimportant characters, I’ve made their perfect gradation a key focus related to climbing methods in my paper. I’m beginning to think that one of the most common means of transition is when the same plant shows the same part in different states: for example, Corydalis claviculata can be considered a tendril-bearer when looking at one leaf and a leaf-climber when looking at another. I’m pretty sure I recall some plants where important parts like the ovule’s position differ, as well as differences in the arrangement of leaves on lateral and terminal branches, etc.

There was not much in last "Natural History Review" which interested me except colonial floras (184/1. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1865, page 46. A review of Grisebach's "Flora of the British West Indian Islands" and Thwaites' "Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae." The point referred to is given at page 57: "More than half the Flowering Plants belong to eleven Orders in the case of the West Indies, and to ten in that of Ceylon, whilst with but one exception the Ceylon Orders are the same as the West Indian." The reviewer speculates on the meaning of the fact "in relation to the hypothesis of an intertropical cold epoch, such as Mr. Darwin demands for the migration of the Northern Flora to the Southern hemisphere.") and the report on the sexuality of cryptogams. I suppose the former was by Oliver; how extremely curious is the fact of similarity of Orders in the Tropics! I feel a conviction that it is somehow connected with Glacial destruction, but I cannot "wriggle" comfortably at all on the subject. I am nearly sure that Dana makes out that the greatest number of crustacean forms inhabit warmer temperate regions.

There wasn't much in the last "Natural History Review" that caught my interest, except for colonial floras (184/1. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1865, page 46. A review of Grisebach's "Flora of the British West Indian Islands" and Thwaites' "Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae." The point mentioned is on page 57: "More than half the Flowering Plants belong to eleven Orders in the case of the West Indies, and to ten in that of Ceylon, while, with one exception, the Ceylon Orders are the same as the West Indian ones." The reviewer speculates on what this means "in relation to the hypothesis of an intertropical cold epoch, such as Mr. Darwin suggests for the migration of the Northern Flora to the Southern hemisphere.") and the report on the sexuality of cryptogams. I assume the former was by Oliver; how incredibly interesting is the similarity of Orders in the Tropics! I strongly believe it is somehow tied to Glacial destruction, but I can't quite "wriggle" comfortably around the topic. I'm pretty sure Dana points out that the greatest number of crustacean forms are found in warmer temperate regions.

I have had an enormous letter from Leo Lesquereux (after doubts, I did not think it worth sending you) on Coal Flora: he wrote some excellent articles in "Silliman" again {my} "Origin" views; but he says now after repeated reading of the book he is a convert! But how funny men's minds are! he says he is chiefly converted because my books make the Birth of Christ, Redemption by Grace, etc., plain to him!

I received a huge letter from Leo Lesquereux (after thinking it over, I didn’t think it was worth sending to you) about Coal Flora: he wrote some great articles in "Silliman" that reference my views in "Origin"; but now he says that after reading the book several times, he’s a convert! But how strange people’s thoughts are! He says he’s mostly convinced because my books clarify the Birth of Christ, Redemption by Grace, and so on!

LETTER 185. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 9th {1865}.

I quite agree how humiliating the slow progress of man is, but every one has his own pet horror, and this slow progress or even personal annihilation sinks in my mind into insignificance compared with the idea or rather I presume certainty of the sun some day cooling and we all freezing. To think of the progress of millions of years, with every continent swarming with good and enlightened men, all ending in this, and with probably no fresh start until this our planetary system has been again converted into red-hot gas. Sic transit gloria mundi, with a vengeance...

I completely agree that the slow progress of humanity is humiliating, but everyone has their own personal fears. For me, this slow progress or even personal extinction seems minor compared to the idea—actually, I assume it’s a certainty—that one day the sun will cool and we’ll all freeze. Just think about millions of years of progress, with every continent filled with good and enlightened people, all leading to this end, likely with no fresh start until our planetary system is once again turned into red-hot gas. So passes the glory of the world, and with intensity...

LETTER 186. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, March 27th {1865}.

I have been much interested by your letter. I received your former paper on Phytophagic variety (186/1. For "Phytophagic Varieties and Phytophagic Species" see "Proc. Entomolog. Soc. Philadelphia," November 1864, page 403, also December 1865. The part on gradation is summarised at pages 427, 428. Walsh shows that a complete gradation exists between species which are absolutely unaffected by change of food and cases where "difference of food is accompanied by marked and constant differences, either colorational, or structural, or both, in the larva, pupa and imago states."), most of which was new to me. I have since received your paper on willow-galls; this has been very opportune, as I wanted to learn a little about galls. There was much in this paper which has interested me extremely, on gradations, etc., and on your "unity of coloration." (186/2. "Unity of coloration": this expression does not seem to occur in the paper of November 1864, but is discussed at length in that of December 1865, page 209.) This latter subject is nearly new to me, though I collected many years ago some such cases with birds; but what struck me most was when a bird genus inhabits two continents, the two sections sometimes display a somewhat different type of colouring. I should like to hear whether this does not occur with widely ranging insect-genera? You may like to hear that Wichura (186/3. Max Wichura's "Die Bastarde befruchtung im Pflanzenreich, etc:" Breslau 1865. A translation appeared in the "Bibliotheque Universelle," xxiii., page 129: Geneva 1865.) has lately published a book which has quite convinced me that in Europe there is a multitude of spontaneous hybrid willows. Would it not be very interesting to know how the gall-makers behaved with respect to these hybrids? Do you think it likely that the ancestor of Cecidomyia acquired its poison like gnats (which suck men) for no especial purpose (at least not for gall-making)? Such notions make me wish that some one would try the experiments suggested in my former letter. Is it not probable that guest-flies were aboriginally gall-makers, and bear the same relation to them which Apathus probably does to Bombus? (186/4. Apathus (= Psithyrus) lives in the nests of Bombus. These insects are said to be so like humble bees that "they were not distinguished from them by the early entomologists:" Dr. Sharp in "Cambridge Nat. Hist. (Insects," Part II.), page 59.) With respect to dimorphism, you may like to hear that Dr. Hooker tells me that a dioecious parasitic plant allied to Rafflesia has its two sexes parasitic on two distinct species of the same genus of plants; so look out for some such case in the two forms of Cynips. I have posted to you copies of my papers on dimorphism. Leersia (186/5. Leersia oryzoides was for a long time thought to produce only cleistogamic and therefore autogamous flowers. See "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 69.) does behave in a state of nature in the provoking manner described by me. With respect to Wagner's curious discovery my opinion is worth nothing; no doubt it is a great anomaly, but it does not appear to me nearly so incredible as to you. Remember how allied forms in the Hydrozoa differ in their so-called alternate generations; I follow those naturalists who look at all such cases as forms of gemmation; and a multitude of organisms have this power or traces of this power at all ages from the germ to maturity. With respect to Agassiz's views, there were many, and there are still not a few, who believe that the same species is created on many spots. I wrote to Bates, and he will send you his mimetic paper; and I dare say others: he is a first-rate man.

I found your letter very interesting. I got your previous paper on Phytophagic variety, which was mostly new to me. I've also received your paper on willow galls, which is timely since I wanted to learn more about galls. There was a lot in this paper that fascinated me, especially regarding gradations and your concept of "unity of coloration." This idea is almost new to me, though I collected some examples with birds years ago. What surprised me most was that when a bird genus spans two continents, the populations sometimes show different color patterns. I'm curious if this happens with widely distributed insect genera as well. You might be interested to know that Wichura recently published a book that convinced me there are many spontaneous hybrids of willows in Europe. It would be intriguing to find out how the gall-makers interact with these hybrids. Do you think it’s possible that the ancestor of Cecidomyia developed its toxins like gnats (which bite humans) without a specific purpose (like making galls)? These ideas make me wish someone would conduct the experiments I suggested in my previous letter. Isn’t it likely that guest flies were originally gall-makers and relate to them in the way Apathus is related to Bombus? Regarding dimorphism, Dr. Hooker mentioned a dioecious parasitic plant related to Rafflesia that has its two sexes parasitizing different species within the same plant genus, so keep an eye out for something similar in the two forms of Cynips. I've sent you copies of my papers on dimorphism. Leersia behaves in nature in the odd way I described. Concerning Wagner's intriguing discovery, my opinion doesn’t hold much value; while it certainly is a great anomaly, it doesn’t seem nearly as incredible to me as it does to you. Remember how closely related forms in Hydrozoa differ in their so-called alternate generations; I agree with those naturalists who consider these cases as forms of gemmation, and many organisms show this ability or hints of it throughout all life stages, from germ to maturity. As for Agassiz's views, many people, and still some, believe that the same species can be created in multiple locations. I wrote to Bates, and he will send you his paper on mimicry; I'm sure he will also send you others—he’s a top-notch guy.

Your case of the wingless insects near the Rocky Mountains is extremely curious. I am sure I have heard of some such case in the Old World: I think on the Caucasus. Would not my argument about wingless insular insects perhaps apply to truly Alpine insects? for would it not be destruction to them to be blown from their proper home? I should like to write on many points at greater length to you, but I have no strength to spare.

Your report about the wingless insects near the Rocky Mountains is really interesting. I think I've heard of a similar case from the Old World, possibly in the Caucasus. Could my argument about wingless insular insects also apply to true Alpine insects? Wouldn't it be devastating for them to be blown away from their natural habitat? I'd love to discuss many points in more detail with you, but I'm too exhausted to do so.

LETTER 187. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, September 22nd {1865}.

I am much obliged for your extract (187/1. Mr. Wallace had sent Darwin a note about a tufted cock-blackbird, which transmitted the character to some of its offspring.); I never heard of such a case, though such a variation is perhaps the most likely of any to occur in a state of nature, and to be inherited, inasmuch as all domesticated birds present races with a tuft or with reversed feathers on their heads. I have sometimes thought that the progenitor of the whole class must have been a crested animal.

I really appreciate your excerpt (187/1. Mr. Wallace had sent Darwin a note about a tufted cock-blackbird that passed on this trait to some of its offspring.); I’ve never heard of such a case before, although this type of variation is likely to happen in nature and be inherited, since all domesticated birds have breeds with tufts or reversed feathers on their heads. I’ve sometimes wondered if the ancestor of the whole group must have been a crested bird.

Do you make any progress with your journal of travels? I am the more anxious that you should do so as I have lately read with much interest some papers by you on the ourang-outan, etc., in the "Annals," of which I have lately been reading the later volumes. I have always thought that journals of this nature do considerable good by advancing the taste for Natural History: I know in my own case that nothing ever stimulated my zeal so much as reading Humboldt's "Personal Narrative." I have not yet received the last part of the "Linnean Transactions," but your paper (187/2. Probably on the variability and distribution of the butterflies of the Malayan region: "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXV., 1866.) at present will be rather beyond my strength, for though somewhat better, I can as yet do hardly anything but lie on the sofa and be read aloud to. By the way, have you read Tylor and Lecky? (187/3. Tylor, "Early History of Mankind;" Lecky's "Rationalism.") Both these books have interested me much. I suppose you have read Lubbock. (187/4. Lubbock, "Prehistoric Times," page 479: "...the theory of Natural Selection, which with characteristic unselfishness he ascribes unreservedly to Mr. Darwin.") In the last chapter there is a note about you in which I most cordially concur. I see you were at the British Association but I have heard nothing of it except what I have picked up in the "Reader." I have heard a rumour that the "Reader" is sold to the Anthropological Society. If you do not begrudge the trouble of another note (for my sole channel of news through Hooker is closed by his illness) I should much like to hear whether the "Reader" is thus sold. I should be very sorry for it, as the paper would thus become sectional in its tendency. If you write, tell me what you are doing yourself. The only news which I have about the "Origin" is that Fritz Muller published a few months ago a remarkable book (187/5. "Fur Darwin.") in its favour, and secondly that a second French edition is just coming out.

Are you making any progress with your travel journal? I'm even more eager to hear about it since I recently read your fascinating papers on the orangutan, etc., in the "Annals," which I've been browsing through the later volumes of. I've always believed that journals like this really help foster an appreciation for Natural History: I know that nothing inspired my passion as much as reading Humboldt's "Personal Narrative." I haven't received the latest part of the "Linnean Transactions," but your paper (187/2. Probably on the variability and distribution of the butterflies of the Malayan region: "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXV., 1866.) is currently a bit too complex for me, as I'm still mostly lying on the sofa and having things read to me, though I'm a little better now. By the way, have you read Tylor and Lecky? (187/3. Tylor, "Early History of Mankind;" Lecky's "Rationalism.") I've found both of these books quite engaging. I assume you’ve read Lubbock. (187/4. Lubbock, "Prehistoric Times," page 479: "...the theory of Natural Selection, which with characteristic unselfishness he ascribes unreservedly to Mr. Darwin.") In the final chapter, there's a note about you with which I completely agree. I noticed you were at the British Association, but I haven't heard anything about it apart from what I've gathered from the "Reader." I've heard a rumor that the "Reader" has been sold to the Anthropological Society. If you don’t mind the trouble of sending another note (since I can't get news through Hooker due to his illness), I’d love to know if this rumor is true. I would be quite upset about it, as the paper would then likely have a more sectional focus. If you write, let me know what you’re up to. The only news I have about the "Origin" is that Fritz Muller published a remarkable book (187/5. "Fur Darwin.") a few months ago in its support, and that a second French edition is about to be released.

LETTER 188. TO F. MULLER. Down, January 11th {1866}.

I received your interesting letter of November 5th some little time ago, and despatched immediately a copy of my "Journal of Researches." I fear you will think me troublesome in my offer; but have you the second German edition of the "Origin?" which is a translation, with additions, of the third English edition, and is, I think, considerably improved compared with the first edition. I have some spare copies which are of no use to me, and it would be a pleasure to me to send you one, if it would be of any use to you. You would never require to re-read the book, but you might wish to refer to some passage. I am particularly obliged for your photograph, for one likes to have a picture in one's mind of any one about whom one is interested. I have received and read with interest your paper on the sponge with horny spicula. (188/1. "Ueber Darwinella aurea, einen Schwamm mit sternformigen Hornnadeln."—"Archiv. Mikrosk. Anat." I., page 57, 1866.) Owing to ill-health, and being busy when formerly well, I have for some years neglected periodical scientific literature, and have lately been reading up, and have thus read translations of several of your papers; amongst which I have been particularly glad to read and see the drawings of the metamorphoses of Peneus. (188/2. "On the Metamorphoses of the Prawns," by Dr. Fritz Muller.—"Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XIV., page 104 (with plate), 1864. Translated by W.S. Dallas from "Wiegmann's Archiv," 1863 (see also "Facts and Arguments for Darwin," passim, translated by W.S. Dallas: London, 1869).) This seems to me the most interesting discovery in embryology which has been made for years.

I received your interesting letter from November 5th a while ago and sent out a copy of my "Journal of Researches" right away. I hope you don’t find my suggestion annoying, but do you have the second German edition of the "Origin"? It's a translation with additions from the third English edition, and I think it’s significantly better than the first edition. I have some extra copies that I don't need, and I'd be happy to send you one if it would be helpful. You might not need to read the book again, but you may want to refer to a specific part. I really appreciate your photograph because it’s nice to have a mental image of someone you’re interested in. I have received and read your paper on the sponge with horny spicula with great interest. (188/1. "Ueber Darwinella aurea, einen Schwamm mit sternformigen Hornnadeln."—"Archiv. Mikrosk. Anat." I., page 57, 1866.) Due to my poor health and being busy when I was well, I’ve neglected periodical scientific literature for a few years, but I've recently been catching up, which includes reading translations of several of your papers. I was particularly pleased to read about and see the drawings of the metamorphoses of Peneus. (188/2. "On the Metamorphoses of the Prawns," by Dr. Fritz Muller.—"Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XIV., page 104 (with plate), 1864. Translated by W.S. Dallas from "Wiegmann's Archiv," 1863 (see also "Facts and Arguments for Darwin," passim, translated by W.S. Dallas: London, 1869).) This seems to me the most fascinating discovery in embryology made in years.

I am much obliged to you for telling me a little of your plans for the future; what a strange, but to my taste interesting life you will lead when you retire to your estate on the Itajahy!

I really appreciate you sharing some of your plans for the future; what a strange, but really interesting life you’ll have when you move to your estate on the Itajahy!

You refer in your letter to the facts which Agassiz is collecting, against our views, on the Amazons. Though he has done so much for science, he seems to me so wild and paradoxical in all his views that I cannot regard his opinions as of any value.

You mention in your letter the information that Agassiz is gathering, which goes against our views, about the Amazon. Even though he's contributed a lot to science, I find him so unconventional and contradictory in all his perspectives that I can't see his opinions as being valuable.

LETTER 189. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 22nd, 1866.

I thank you for your paper on pigeons (189/1. "On the Pigeons of the Malay Archipelago" (The "Ibis," October, 1865). Mr. Wallace points out (page 366) that "the most striking superabundance of pigeons, as well as of parrots, is confined to the Australo-Malayan sub-region in which...the forest-haunting and fruit-eating mammals, such as monkeys and squirrels, are totally absent." He points out also that monkeys are "exceedingly destructive to eggs and young birds."), which interested me, as everything that you write does. Who would ever have dreamed that monkeys influenced the distribution of pigeons and parrots! But I have had a still higher satisfaction, for I finished your paper yesterday in the "Linnean Transactions." (189/2. "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXV.: a paper on the geographical distribution and variability of the Malayan Papilionidae.) It is admirably done. I cannot conceive that the most firm believer in species could read it without being staggered. Such papers will make many more converts among naturalists than long-winded books such as I shall write if I have strength. I have been particularly struck with your remarks on dimorphism; but I cannot quite understand one point (page 22), (189/3. The passage referred to in this letter as needing further explanation is the following: "The last six cases of mimicry are especially instructive, because they seem to indicate one of the processes by which dimorphic forms have been produced. When, as in these cases, one sex differs much from the other, and varies greatly itself, it may happen that individual variations will occasionally occur, having a distant resemblance to groups which are the objects of mimicry, and which it is therefore advantageous to resemble. Such a variety will have a better chance of preservation; the individuals possessing it will be multiplied; and their accidental likeness to the favoured group will be rendered permanent by hereditary transmission, and each successive variation which increases the resemblance being preserved, and all variations departing from the favoured type having less chance of preservation, there will in time result those singular cases of two or more isolated and fixed forms bound together by that intimate relationship which constitutes them the sexes of a single species. The reason why the females are more subject to this kind of modification than the males is, probably, that their slower flight, when laden with eggs, and their exposure to attack while in the act of depositing their eggs upon leaves, render it especially advantageous for them to have some additional protection. This they at once obtain by acquiring a resemblance to other species which, from whatever cause, enjoy a comparative immunity from persecution." Mr. Wallace has been good enough to give us the following note on the above passage: "The above quotation deals solely with the question of how certain females of the polymorphic species (Papilio Memnon, P. Pammon, and others) have been so modified as to mimic species of a quite distinct section of the genus; but it does not attempt to explain why or how the other very variable types of female arose, and this was Darwin's difficulty. As the letter I wrote in reply is lost, and as it is rather difficult to explain the matter clearly without reference to the coloured figures, I must go into some little detail, and give now what was probably the explanation I gave at the time. The male of Papilio Memnon is a large black butterfly with the nervures towards the margins of the wings bordered with bluish gray dots. It is a forest insect, and the very dark colour renders it conspicuous; but it is a strong flier, and thus survives. To the female, however, this conspicuous mass of colour would be dangerous, owing to her slower flight, and the necessity for continually resting while depositing her eggs on the leaves of the food-plant of the larva. She has accordingly acquired lighter and more varied tints. The marginal gray-dotted stripes of the male have become of a brownish ash and much wider on the fore wings, while the margin of the hind wings is yellowish, with a more defined spot near the anal angle. This is the form most nearly like the male, but it is comparatively rare, the more common being much lighter in colour, the bluish gray of the hind wings being often entirely replaced by a broad band of yellowish white. The anal angle is orange-yellow, and there is a bright red spot at the base of the fore wings. Between these two extremes there is every possible variation. Now, it is quite certain that this varying mixture of brown, black, white, yellow, and red is far less conspicuous amid the ever-changing hues of the forest with their glints of sunshine everywhere penetrating so as to form strong contrasts and patches of light and shade. Hence ALL the females—one at one time and one at another—get SOME protection, and that is sufficient to enable them to live long enough to lay their eggs, when their work is finished. Still, under bad conditions they only just managed to survive, and as the colouring of some of these varying females very much resembled that of the protected butterflies of the P. coon group (perhaps at a time when the tails of the latter were not fully developed) any rudiments of a prolongation of the wing into a tail added to the protective resemblance, and was therefore preserved. The woodcuts of some of these forms in my "Malay Archipelago" (i., page 200) will enable those who have this book at hand better to understand the foregoing explanation."), and should be grateful for an explanation, for I want fully to understand you. How can one female form be selected and the intermediate forms die out, without also the other extreme form also dying out from not having the advantages of the first selected form? for, as I understand, both female forms occur on the same island. I quite agree with your distinction between dimorphic forms and varieties; but I doubt whether your criterion of dimorphic forms not producing intermediate offspring will suffice, for I know of a good many varieties which must be so called that will not blend or intermix, but produce offspring quite like either parent.

I appreciate your paper on pigeons (189/1. "On the Pigeons of the Malay Archipelago" (The "Ibis," October, 1865). Mr. Wallace mentions (page 366) that "the most striking abundance of pigeons, as well as parrots, is limited to the Australo-Malayan sub-region, where...forest-dwelling and fruit-eating mammals, like monkeys and squirrels, are completely absent." He also notes that monkeys are "extremely destructive to eggs and young birds."), which intrigued me, as everything you write does. Who would have ever imagined that monkeys affected the distribution of pigeons and parrots! But I've also had even greater satisfaction, as I finished reading your paper yesterday in the "Linnean Transactions." (189/2. "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXV.: a paper on the geographical distribution and variability of the Malayan Papilionidae.) It’s exceptionally well done. I can’t imagine that even the most devoted believer in species could read it without being taken aback. Papers like this will convert many more naturalists than the lengthy books I might write if I have the energy. I was particularly impressed with your comments on dimorphism; however, I don't quite grasp one point (page 22), (189/3. The passage referred to in this letter as needing further explanation is the following: "The last six cases of mimicry are especially instructive, because they seem to indicate one of the processes by which dimorphic forms have been produced. When, as in these cases, one sex differs greatly from the other, and varies significantly itself, it may happen that individual variations occasionally occur, resembling groups that are the subjects of mimicry, and which it is thus advantageous to imitate. Such a variety will have a better chance of survival; individuals possessing it will be more numerous; and their accidental resemblance to the favored group will be maintained through hereditary transmission, with each successive variation that increases the resemblance being preserved, while all variations diverging from the favored type will have a reduced chance of survival. Over time, this will result in those unique cases of two or more isolated and fixed forms linked by an intimate relationship that defines them as the sexes of a single species. The reason why females are more likely to undergo this modification than males is probably that their slower flight, when burdened with eggs, and their vulnerability during the act of laying their eggs on leaves, make it especially beneficial for them to have added protection. This is immediately gained by acquiring a resemblance to other species that, for whatever reason, enjoy relative immunity from predation." Mr. Wallace has kindly provided the following note on the above passage: "The above quotation deals solely with the question of how certain females of the polymorphic species (Papilio Memnon, P. Pammon, and others) have been altered to mimic species of a completely different section of the genus; it does not attempt to explain why or how the other highly variable types of female came into being, which was Darwin's difficulty. Since the letter I wrote in response is lost, and as it’s somewhat difficult to clarify the matter without referencing the colored figures, I must go into a bit of detail and provide what was likely my explanation at the time. The male of Papilio Memnon is a large black butterfly with the veins near the edges of the wings lined with bluish-gray dots. It's a forest insect, and its very dark color makes it prominent; however, it’s a strong flier, allowing it to survive. For the female, though, this prominent mass of color would be dangerous due to her slower flight and the need to frequently rest while laying her eggs on the leaves of the larva's food plant. Consequently, she has developed lighter and more varied hues. The gray-dotted margins of the male have turned into brownish ash and have widened on the forewings, while the hindwings are yellowish, with a more defined spot near the anal angle. This form is the most similar to the male, but it's comparatively rare; the more common form is much lighter, with the bluish-gray of the hindwings often completely replaced by a broad band of yellowish-white. The anal angle is orange-yellow, with a bright red spot at the base of the forewings. Between these two extremes, every conceivable variation exists. Now, it’s clear that this mixed assortment of brown, black, white, yellow, and red is much less noticeable among the ever-changing hues of the forest, where sunlight filters through to create strong contrasts and patches of light and shadow. Thus, ALL the females—one at one time and one at another—gain SOME protection, allowing them to live long enough to lay their eggs once their job is done. Still, under poor conditions, they barely manage to survive, and given that the coloring of some of these varying females closely resembles that of the protected butterflies of the P. coon group (perhaps at a time when the tails of the latter were not fully developed), any rudimentary extension of the wing into a tail enhanced the protective resemblance and was therefore preserved. The woodcuts of some of these forms in my "Malay Archipelago" (i., page 200) will help those who have this book handy to better understand the above explanation."), and I would appreciate an explanation because I want to fully understand your point. How can one female form be favored and the intermediate forms disappear without the other extreme form also going extinct due to lacking the advantages of the first selected form? As I understand it, both female forms exist on the same island. I completely agree with your distinction between dimorphic forms and varieties; however, I question whether your criterion of dimorphic forms not producing intermediate offspring is sufficient, as I know of several varieties that could be classified as such that do not blend or intermix, but produce offspring that closely resemble either parent.

I have been particularly struck with your remarks on geographical distribution in Celebes. It is impossible that anything could be better put, and would give a cold shudder to the immutable naturalists.

I have been especially impressed by your comments on geographical distribution in Celebes. It's hard to imagine anything being expressed better, and it would send a chill down the spines of the unchanging naturalists.

And now I am going to ask a question which you will not like. How does your journal get on? It will be a shame if you do not popularise your researches.

And now I'm going to ask a question you probably won't appreciate. How's your journal coming along? It would be a shame if you don't share your research with others.

LETTER 190. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, July 2nd, 1866.

I have been so repeatedly struck by the utter inability of numbers of intelligent persons to see clearly, or at all, the self-acting and necessary effects of Natural Selection, that I am led to conclude that the term itself, and your mode of illustrating it, however clear and beautiful to many of us, are yet not the best adapted to impress it on the general naturalist public. The two last cases of the misunderstanding are: (1) the article on "Darwin and his Teachings" in the last "Quarterly Journal of Science," which, though very well written and on the whole appreciative, yet concludes with a charge of something like blindness, in your not seeing that Natural Selection requires the constant watching of an intelligent "chooser," like man's selection to which you so often compare it; and (2) in Janet's recent work on the "Materialism of the Present Day," reviewed in last Saturday's "Reader," by an extract from which I see that he considers your weak point to be that you do not see that "thought and direction are essential to the action of Natural Selection." The same objection has been made a score of times by your chief opponents, and I have heard it as often stated myself in conversation. Now, I think this arises almost entirely from your choice of the term "Natural Selection" and so constantly comparing it in its effects to Man's Selection, and also your so frequently personifying nature as "selecting," as "preferring," as "seeking only the good of the species," etc., etc. To the few this is as clear as daylight, and beautifully suggestive, but to many it is evidently a stumbling-block. I wish, therefore, to suggest to you the possibility of entirely avoiding this source of misconception in your great work (if not now too late), and also in any future editions of the "Origin," and I think it may be done without difficulty and very effectually by adopting Spencer's term (which he generally uses in preference to Natural Selection)—viz., "survival of the fittest."

I have been repeatedly struck by how many intelligent people fail to clearly understand, or even recognize, the automatic and necessary effects of Natural Selection. This leads me to conclude that the term itself, along with the way you explain it, though clear and beautiful to many of us, are not really the best suited to impress it on the general public interested in nature. The most recent examples of this misunderstanding are: (1) the article on "Darwin and his Teachings" in the latest "Quarterly Journal of Science," which, although very well written and generally appreciative, ends by accusing you of a sort of blindness for not realizing that Natural Selection requires the ongoing supervision of an intelligent "chooser," similar to man's selection, which you often compare it to; and (2) in Janet's recent book on the "Materialism of the Present Day," reviewed in last Saturday's "Reader," he includes an excerpt that suggests your weak point is not recognizing that "thought and direction are essential to the action of Natural Selection." This same objection has been raised many times by your main opponents, and I've heard it just as often in conversations. I believe this largely comes from your choice of the term "Natural Selection" and your tendency to compare its effects to Man's Selection, as well as frequently personifying nature as "selecting," "preferring," or "seeking only the good of the species," etc. To a few, this is as clear as day and beautifully suggestive, but for many, it is clearly a stumbling block. Therefore, I want to suggest that you consider avoiding this source of misunderstanding in your major work (if it’s not too late), as well as in any future editions of the "Origin." I think this can be done easily and effectively by adopting Spencer's phrase, which he often uses instead of Natural Selection—namely, "survival of the fittest."

This term is the plain expression of the fact; Natural Selection is a metaphorical expression of it, and to a certain degree indirect and incorrect, since, even personifying Nature, she does not so much select special variations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones.

This term clearly expresses the fact; Natural Selection is a metaphorical way of saying it, and to some extent, it’s indirect and inaccurate, because even when we think of Nature as a person, she doesn’t really select specific variations, but rather eliminates the least favorable ones.

Combined with the enormous multiplying powers of all organisms, and the "struggle for existence" leading to the constant destruction of by far the largest proportion—facts which no one of your opponents, as far as I am aware, has denied or misunderstood—"the survival of the fittest" rather than of those who were less fit could not possibly be denied or misunderstood. Neither would it be possible to say that to ensure the "survival of the fittest" any intelligent chooser was necessary; whereas when you say Natural Selection acts so as to choose those that are fittest, it IS misunderstood, and apparently always will be. Referring to your book, I find such expressions as "Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends." This, it seems, will always be misunderstood; but if you had said "Man selects only for his own good; Nature, by the inevitable 'survival of the fittest,' only for that of the being she tends," it would have been less liable to be so.

Combined with the huge multiplying abilities of all organisms, and the "struggle for existence" that leads to the constant destruction of the largest proportion—facts that none of your opponents, as far as I know, have denied or misunderstood—"the survival of the fittest" rather than of those who are less fit can't be denied or misunderstood. It also wouldn't be accurate to say that to ensure the "survival of the fittest," any intelligent chooser is required; however, when you claim that Natural Selection acts to choose those that are fittest, it is indeed misunderstood and seems like it always will be. Referring to your book, I see phrases like "Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends." This, it seems, will always be misunderstood; but if you had said "Man selects only for his own good; Nature, by the inevitable 'survival of the fittest,' only for that of the being she tends," it would have been less likely to be misinterpreted.

I find you use the term "Natural Selection" in two senses: (1) for the simple preservation of favourable and rejection of unfavourable variations, in which case it is equivalent to "survival of the fittest"; and (2) for the effect or change produced by this preservation, as when you say, "To sum up the circumstances favourable or unfavourable to Natural Selection," and again, "Isolation, also, is an important element in the process of Natural Selection." Here it is not merely "survival of the fittest," but change produced by survival of the fittest, that is meant. On looking over your fourth chapter, I find that these alterations of terms can be in most cases easily made, while in some cases the addition of "or survival of the fittest" after "Natural Selection" would be best; and in others, less likely to be misunderstood, the original term may stand alone.

I see that you use the term "Natural Selection" in two ways: (1) to mean the simple preservation of beneficial traits and the rejection of harmful ones, which is similar to "survival of the fittest"; and (2) to describe the effects or changes resulting from this preservation, like when you say, "To sum up the circumstances that are favorable or unfavorable to Natural Selection," and again, "Isolation is also an important factor in the process of Natural Selection." Here, it's not just "survival of the fittest," but also the change that comes from it. In reviewing your fourth chapter, I find that these wording adjustments can mostly be made easily. In some cases, adding "or survival of the fittest" after "Natural Selection" would work best; and in others, to avoid confusion, the original term can stand alone.

I could not venture to propose to any other person so great an alteration of terms, but you, I am sure, will give it an impartial consideration, and if you really think the change will produce a better understanding of your work, will not hesitate to adopt it.

I can’t suggest such a significant change to anyone else, but I’m sure you will consider it fairly. If you genuinely believe this change will lead to a better understanding of your work, you won’t hesitate to embrace it.

It is evidently also necessary not to personify "Nature" too much—though I am very apt to do it myself—since people will not understand that all such phrases are metaphors. Natural Selection is, when understood, so necessary and self-evident a principle, that it is a pity it should be in any way obscured; and it therefore seems to me that the free use of "survival of the fittest," which is a compact and accurate definition of it, would tend much to its being more widely accepted, and prevent it being so much misrepresented and misunderstood.

It’s important not to personify "Nature" too much—although I tend to do that myself—because people might not realize that all these phrases are just metaphors. Natural Selection, when fully understood, is such a clear and necessary principle that it’s unfortunate if it gets obscured in any way. I believe that using the phrase "survival of the fittest," which is a concise and accurate definition of it, would help it be more widely accepted and reduce the chances of it being misrepresented or misunderstood.

There is another objection made by Janet which is also a very common one. It is that the chances are almost infinite against the particular kind of variation required being coincident with each change of external conditions, to enable an animal to become modified by Natural Selection in harmony with such changed conditions; especially when we consider that, to have produced the almost infinite modifications of organic beings, this coincidence must have taken place an almost infinite number of times.

There’s another argument made by Janet that is also quite common. It’s that the odds are almost endless against the specific type of variation needed aligning perfectly with every change in external conditions, allowing an animal to adapt through Natural Selection to fit those changed conditions; especially when we think about how, to have created the almost limitless modifications of living beings, this alignment must have happened an almost infinite number of times.

Now, it seems to me that you have yourself led to this objection being made, by so often stating the case too strongly against yourself. For example, at the commencement of Chapter IV. you ask if it is "improbable that useful variations should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations"; and a little further on you say, "unless profitable variations do occur, Natural Selection can do nothing." Now, such expressions have given your opponents the advantage of assuming that favourable variations are rare accidents, or may even for long periods never occur at all, and thus Janet's argument would appear to many to have great force. I think it would be better to do away with all such qualifying expressions, and constantly maintain (what I certainly believe to be the fact) that variations of every kind are always occurring in every part of every species, and therefore that favourable variations are always ready when wanted. You have, I am sure, abundant materials to prove this; and it is, I believe, the grand fact that renders modification and adaptation to conditions almost always possible. I would put the burthen of proof on my opponents to show that any one organ, structure, or faculty does not vary, even during one generation, among all the individuals of a species; and also to show any mode or way in which any such organ, etc., does not vary. I would ask them to give any reason for supposing that any organ, etc., is ever absolutely identical at any one time in all the individuals of a species, and if not then it is always varying, and there are always materials which, from the simple fact that "the fittest survive," will tend to the modification of the race into harmony with changed conditions.

Now, it seems to me that you have led yourself to this objection being made by often stating the case too strongly against yourself. For example, at the beginning of Chapter IV, you ask if it is "improbable that useful variations should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations"; and a little further on you say, "unless profitable variations do occur, Natural Selection can do nothing." Such statements have given your opponents the advantage of assuming that favorable variations are rare accidents, or may not occur at all for long periods, making Janet's argument seem very strong to many. I think it would be better to eliminate all such qualifying phrases and always assert (which I truly believe to be the fact) that variations of every kind are constantly happening in every part of every species, and therefore that favorable variations are always available when needed. You surely have plenty of evidence to prove this; and I believe it is the main fact that makes modification and adaptation to conditions almost always possible. I would place the burden of proof on my opponents to demonstrate that any one organ, structure, or function does not vary, even during one generation, among all the individuals of a species; and also to show any method or reason why any such organ, etc., does not vary. I would ask them to provide any rationale for believing that any organ, etc., is ever completely identical at any one time in all the individuals of a species, and if not, then it is always varying, and there are always materials which, due to the simple fact that "the fittest survive," will drive the modification of the race to adapt to changing conditions.

I hope these remarks may be intelligible to you, and that you will be so kind as to let me know what you think of them.

I hope these comments make sense to you, and I would appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts on them.

I have not heard for some time how you are getting on. I hope you are still improving in health, and that you will now be able to get on with your great work, for which so many thousands are looking with interest.

I haven't heard how you've been doing in a while. I hope your health is still getting better and that you can now focus on your important work, which so many people are eagerly anticipating.

LETTER 191. TO A.R. WALLACE.

(191/1. From "Life and Letters," III., page 45.)

Down, July 5th {1866}.

Down, July 5, 1866.

I have been much interested by your letter, which is as clear as daylight. I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's excellent expression of "the survival of the fittest." This, however, had not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive governing a verb; and that this is a real objection I infer from H. Spencer continually using the words Natural Selection. I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated degree, that it was a great advantage to bring into connection natural and artificial selection; this indeed led me to use a term in common, and I still think it some advantage. I wish I had received your letter two months ago, for I would have worked in "the survival," etc., often in the new edition of the "Origin," which is now almost printed off, and of which I will of course send you a copy. I will use the term in my next book on domestic animals, etc., from which, by the way, I plainly see that you expect MUCH too much. The term Natural Selection has now been so largely used abroad and at home that I doubt whether it could be given up, and with all its faults I should be sorry to see the attempt made. Whether it will be rejected must now depend "on the survival of the fittest." As in time the term must grow intelligible the objections to its use will grow weaker and weaker. I doubt whether the use of any term would have made the subject intelligible to some minds, clear as it is to others; for do we not see even to the present day Malthus on Population absurdly misunderstood? This reflection about Malthus has often comforted me when I have been vexed at this misstatement of my views. As for M. Janet, he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen are so acute that I think they often misunderstand common folk. Your criticism on the double sense in which I have used Natural Selection is new to me and unanswerable; but my blunder has done no harm, for I do not believe that any one, excepting you, has ever observed it. Again, I agree that I have said too much about "favourable variations," but I am inclined to think that you put the opposite side too strongly: if every part of every being varied, I do not think we should see the same end or object gained by such wonderfully diversified means.

I found your letter really interesting; it’s as clear as day. I completely agree with everything you said about H. Spencer's great phrase "the survival of the fittest." However, I hadn’t thought of it that way until I read your letter. One major issue with that term is that it can’t be used as a noun governing a verb, and I infer that this is a real concern since H. Spencer continuously uses the phrase Natural Selection. I used to think, perhaps a bit too much, that it was very beneficial to connect natural and artificial selection; that’s why I started using a common term, and I still believe that has some advantages. I wish I had gotten your letter two months ago because I would have included "the survival," etc., much more in the new edition of the "Origin," which is now almost printed, and I will definitely send you a copy. I’ll include the term in my next book on domestic animals, etc., from which, by the way, I can clearly see you expect WAY too much. The term Natural Selection has been used so widely both abroad and at home that I doubt it could be discarded, and despite its flaws, I would hate to see any effort made to drop it. Whether it will be rejected now depends on "the survival of the fittest." As time goes on, the term should become clearer, and the objections to it will lessen. I’m skeptical that any term would have made the subject clear to some people, even though it’s clear to others; just look at how Malthus on Population is still misunderstood today! This thought about Malthus has often comforted me when I’ve been frustrated by the misrepresentation of my views. Regarding M. Janet, he’s a metaphysician, and those guys are so sharp that I think they often misinterpret ordinary people. Your critique about the double meaning I used with Natural Selection is new to me and unarguable; but my mistake hasn’t harmed anything because I don’t think anyone, except you, has ever noticed it. Once again, I agree that I’ve talked too much about "favorable variations," but I think you’re putting the opposing side too strongly: if every part of every being varied, I don’t think we would see the same outcome or goal achieved through such wildly different means.

I hope you are enjoying the country, and are in good health, and are working hard at your "Malay Archipelago" book, for I will always put this wish in every note I write to you, as some good people always put in a text. My health keeps much the same, or rather improves, and I am able to work some hours daily.

I hope you're enjoying the countryside, staying healthy, and putting in hard work on your "Malay Archipelago" book, because I always include this wish in every note I write to you, just like some kind people always include a quote. My health remains about the same, or has actually improved, and I can work a few hours each day.

LETTER 192. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 9th {1866}.

One line to say that I have received your note and the proofs safely, and will read them with the greatest pleasure; but I am certain I shall not be able to send any criticism on the astronomical chapter (192/1. "Principles of Geology," by Sir Charles Lyell; Edition X., London, 1867. Chapter XIII. deals with "Vicissitudes in Climate how far influenced by Astronomical Causes."), as I am as ignorant as a pig on this head. I shall require some days to read what has been sent. I have just read Chapter IX. (192/2. Chapter IX., "Theory of the Progressive Development of Organic Life at Successive Geological Periods."), and like it extremely; it all seems to me very clear, cautious, and sagacious. You do not allude to one very striking point enough, or at all—viz., the classes having been formerly less differentiated than they now are; and this specialisation of classes must, we may conclude, fit them for different general habits of life as well as the specialisation of particular organs.

I just wanted to let you know that I received your note and the proofs safely, and I'm excited to read them. However, I'm sure I won't be able to provide any feedback on the astronomical chapter (192/1. "Principles of Geology," by Sir Charles Lyell; Edition X., London, 1867. Chapter XIII. talks about "Vicissitudes in Climate how far influenced by Astronomical Causes."), as I'm completely clueless about that topic. I will need a few days to go through what you've sent. I just finished Chapter IX. (192/2. Chapter IX., "Theory of the Progressive Development of Organic Life at Successive Geological Periods."), and I really liked it; everything seems very clear, careful, and insightful. You don’t emphasize one very important point enough—or at all—which is that the classes used to be less differentiated than they are now. This specialization of classes must, I think, prepare them for different general ways of life, just as the specialization of specific organs does.

Page 162 (192/3. On page 163 Lyell refers to the absence of Cetacea in Secondary rocks, and expresses the opinion that their absence "is a negative fact of great significance, which seems more than any other to render it highly improbable that we shall ever find air-breathers of the highest class in any of the Primary strata, or in any of the older members of the Secondary series.") I rather demur to your argument from Cetacea: as they are such greatly modified mammals, they ought to have come in rather later in the series. You will think me rather impudent, but the discussion at the end of Chapter IX. on man (192/4. Loc. cit., pages 167-73, "Introduction of Man, to what extent a Change of the System."), who thinks so much of his fine self, seems to me too long, or rather superfluous, and too orthodox, except for the beneficed clergy.

Page 162 (192/3. On page 163, Lyell notes the absence of Cetacea in Secondary rocks and believes that their absence "is a significant negative fact, which seems more than anything else to make it highly unlikely that we will ever find air-breathing animals of the highest class in any of the Primary layers or in any of the older parts of the Secondary series.") I have some reservations about your argument regarding Cetacea: since they are such highly evolved mammals, they should have appeared later in the sequence. You might think I'm being a bit bold, but the discussion at the end of Chapter IX about man (192/4. Loc. cit., pages 167-73, "Introduction of Man, to what extent a Change of the System."), who has such a high opinion of himself, feels too lengthy, or rather unnecessary, and too conventional, except for those in the clergy with benefices.

LETTER 193. TO V. CARUS.

(193/1. The following letter refers to the 4th edition of the "Origin," 1866, which was translated by Professor Carus, and formed the 3rd German edition. Carus continued to translate Darwin's books, and a strong bond of friendship grew up between author and translator (see "Life and Letters," III., page 48). Nageli's pamphlet was first noticed in the 5th English edition.)

(193/1. The following letter refers to the 4th edition of the "Origin," 1866, which was translated by Professor Carus and became the 3rd German edition. Carus continued to translate Darwin's books, and a strong friendship developed between the author and the translator (see "Life and Letters," III., page 48). Nageli's pamphlet was first acknowledged in the 5th English edition.)

Down, November 21st, 1866.

Down, November 21, 1866.

...With respect to a note on Nageli (193/2. "Entstehung und Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art," an Address given before the Royal Academy of Sciences at Munich, March 28th, 1865. See "Life and Letters," III., page 50, for Mr. Darwin's letter to the late Prof. Nageli.) I find on consideration it would be too long; for so good a pamphlet ought to be discussed at full length or not at all. He makes a mistake in supposing that I say that useful characters are always constant. His view about distinct species converging and acquiring the same identical structure is by implication answered in the discussion which I have given on the endless diversity of means for gaining the same end.

...Regarding a note on Nageli (193/2. "Entstehung und Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art," an address presented to the Royal Academy of Sciences in Munich on March 28th, 1865. See "Life and Letters," III., page 50, for Mr. Darwin's letter to the late Prof. Nageli.) Upon reflection, I realize it would be too lengthy; a pamphlet as good as this deserves a thorough discussion or none at all. He errs in thinking that I claim useful traits are always consistent. His perspective on different species coming together and developing the same exact structure is indirectly addressed in the discussion I provided on the endless variety of ways to achieve the same outcome.

The most important point, as it seems to me, in the pamphlet is that on the morphological characters of plants, and I find I could not answer this without going into much detail.

The key point, as I see it, in the pamphlet is about the physical traits of plants, and I realize that I can’t address this without providing a lot of details.

The answer would be, as it seems to me, that important morphological characters, such as the position of the ovules and the relative position of the stamens to the ovarium (hypogynous, perigynous, etc.) are sometimes variable in the same species, as I incidentally mention when treating of the ray-florets in the Compositae and Umbelliferae; and I do not see how Nageli could maintain that differences in such characters prove an inherent tendency towards perfection. I see that I have forgotten to say that you have my fullest consent to append any discussion which you may think fit to the new edition. As for myself I cannot believe in spontaneous generation, and though I expect that at some future time the principle of life will be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me beyond the confines of science.

The answer, it seems to me, is that important morphological features—like the position of the ovules and how the stamens are arranged in relation to the ovary (hypogynous, perigynous, etc.)—can sometimes vary within the same species. I mentioned this briefly when discussing the ray florets in the Compositae and Umbelliferae. I don’t understand how Nageli could argue that differences in these traits indicate an inherent drive toward perfection. I also realized I forgot to mention that you have my full permission to add any discussion you think is appropriate to the new edition. As for me, I can't believe in spontaneous generation, and while I hope that one day the principle of life will be made clear, for now, it seems to be outside the bounds of science.

LETTER 194. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 22nd {1866?}.

I suppose that you have received Hackel's book (194/1. "Generelle Morphologie," 1866.) some time ago, as I have done. Whenever you have had time to read through some of it, enough to judge by, I shall be very curious to hear your judgment. I have been able to read a page or two here and there, and have been interested and instructed by parts. But my vague impression is that too much space is given to methodical details, and I can find hardly any facts or detailed new views. The number of new words, to a man like myself, weak in his Greek, is something dreadful. He seems to have a passion for defining, I daresay very well, and for coining new words. From my very vague notions on the book, and from its immense size, I should fear a translation was out of the question. I see he often quotes both of us with praise. I am sure I should like the book much, if I could read it straight off instead of groaning and swearing at each sentence. I have not yet had time to read your Physiology (194/2. "Lessons in Elementary Physiology," 1866.) book, except one chapter; but I have just re-read your book on "Man's Place, etc.," and I think I admire it more this second time even than the first. I doubt whether you will ever have time, but if ever you have, do read the chapter on hybridism in the new edition of the "Origin" (194/3. Fourth Edition (1866).), for I am very anxious to make you think less seriously on that difficulty. I have improved the chapter a good deal, I think, and have come to more definite views. Asa Gray and Fritz Muller (the latter especially) think that the new facts on illegitimate offspring of dimorphic plants, throw much indirect light on the subject. Now that I have worked up domestic animals, I am convinced of the truth of the Pallasian (194/4. See Letter 80.) view of loss of sterility under domestication, and this seems to me to explain much. But I had no intention, when I began this note, of running on at such length on hybridism; but you have been Objector-General on this head.

I assume you got Hackel's book (194/1. "Generelle Morphologie," 1866.) a while ago, just like I did. When you have a chance to read some of it, enough to form an opinion, I’m really curious to hear what you think. I’ve managed to read a page or two here and there, and I’ve found parts of it interesting and informative. However, my overall impression is that there’s too much focus on methodological details, and I can hardly find any facts or new insights. The number of new terms is overwhelming for someone like me, who struggles with Greek. He seems to have a knack for defining concepts, and probably does it well, along with creating new words. Based on my limited understanding and the book's massive size, I’m afraid a translation would be impossible. I notice he frequently praises both of us, which is nice. I’m sure I would enjoy the book a lot if I could read it smoothly instead of stumbling through each sentence. I haven’t yet had time to read your Physiology (194/2. "Lessons in Elementary Physiology," 1866.) book, aside from one chapter; but I just reread your book on "Man's Place, etc.," and I think I appreciate it even more this time than the last. I doubt you'll ever find the time, but if you do, please read the chapter on hybridism in the new edition of the "Origin" (194/3. Fourth Edition (1866).), because I really want you to see this issue in a less serious light. I believe I’ve improved that chapter quite a bit and have reached clearer conclusions. Asa Gray and Fritz Muller (the latter especially) think that the new findings on illegitimate offspring of dimorphic plants shed a lot of indirect light on the topic. Now that I’ve studied domestic animals, I’m convinced of the truth behind the Pallasian (194/4. See Letter 80.) idea about the loss of sterility with domestication, and I think this explains a lot. I didn’t mean to go on at such length about hybridism when I started this note, but you’ve been the main objector on this topic.

LETTER 195. TO T. RIVERS.

(195/1. For another letter of Mr. Darwin's to him see "Life and Letters," III., page 57.)

(195/1. For another letter from Mr. Darwin to him, see "Life and Letters," III., page 57.)

Down, December 23rd {1866?}.

Down, December 23, 1866.

I do not know whether you will forgive a stranger addressing you. My name may possibly be known to you. I am now writing a book on the variation of animals and plants under domestication; and there is one little piece of information which it is more likely that you could give me than any man in the world, if you can spare half an hour from your professional labours, and are inclined to be so kind. I am collecting all accounts of what some call "sports," that is, of what I shall call "bud-variations," i.e. a moss-rose suddenly appearing on a Provence rose—a nectarine on a peach, etc. Now, what I want to know, and which is not likely to be recorded in print, is whether very slight differences, too slight to be worth propagating, thus appear suddenly by buds. As every one knows, in raising seedlings you may have every gradation from individuals identical with the parent, to slight varieties, to strongly marked varieties. Now, does this occur with buds or do only rather strongly marked varieties thus appear at rare intervals of time by buds? (195/2. Mr. Rivers could not give a decided answer, but he did not remember to have seen slight bud-variations. The question is discussed in "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 443.) I should be most grateful for information. I may add that if you have observed in your enormous experience any remarkable "bud-variations," and could spare time to inform me, and allow me to quote them on your authority, it would be the greatest favour. I feel sure that these "bud-variations" are most interesting to any one endeavouring to make out what little can be made out on the obscure subject of variation.

I’m not sure if you’ll forgive a stranger reaching out to you. You might have heard of me. I’m currently writing a book about how animals and plants change under domestication, and there’s a small piece of information that you could provide better than anyone else in the world, if you have half an hour to spare from your work and are willing to help. I’m gathering all accounts of what some call "sports," which I’ll refer to as "bud-variations," like a moss-rose suddenly appearing on a Provence rose—a nectarine on a peach, and so on. What I want to know, and what probably isn’t documented anywhere, is whether very slight differences, too minor to propagate, can suddenly appear from buds. As everyone knows, when raising seedlings, you can see a range from individuals that are identical to the parent, to slight variations, to more pronounced varieties. So, do these slight variations occur with buds, or do only more distinct varieties appear rarely through buds? (195/2. Mr. Rivers couldn’t give a definite answer, but he didn’t recall seeing any minor bud-variations. The topic is discussed in "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 443.) I would really appreciate any information you could share. If you’ve noticed any notable "bud-variations" in your extensive experience and have time to tell me about them, allowing me to cite them with your approval would be a huge help. I believe these "bud-variations" are incredibly interesting to anyone trying to understand what little can be discerned about the complex topic of variation.

LETTER 196. TO T. RIVERS. Down, January 7th {1867?}.

I thank you much for your letter and the parcel of shoots. The case of the yellow plum is a treasure, and is now safely recorded on your authority in its proper place, in contrast with A. Knight's case of the yellow magnum bonum sporting into red. (196/1. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 399.) I could see no difference in the shoots, except that those of the yellow were thicker, and I presume that this is merely accidental: as you do not mention it, I further presume that there are no further differences in leaves or flowers of the two plums. I am very glad to hear about the yellow ash, and that you yourself have seen the jessamine case. I must confess that I hardly fully believed in it; but now I do, and very surprising it is.

Thank you so much for your letter and the package of shoots. The yellow plum case is a gem, and it's now securely noted under your name in its rightful spot, unlike A. Knight's case of the yellow magnum bonum turning red. (196/1. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 399.) I didn't notice any differences in the shoots, except that the yellow ones were thicker, which I assume is just coincidental. Since you didn't mention it, I also assume there are no other differences in the leaves or flowers of the two plums. I'm very happy to hear about the yellow ash, and that you’ve seen the jessamine case yourself. I must admit I didn't fully believe in it before, but now I do, and it's quite surprising.

In an old French book, published in Amsterdam in 1786 (I think), there is an account, apparently authentic and attested by the writer as an eye-witness, of hyacinth bulbs of two colours being cut in two and grafted, and they sent up single stalks with differently coloured flowers on the two sides, and some flowers parti-coloured. I once thought of offering 5 pounds reward in the "Cottage Gardener" for such a plant; but perhaps it would seem too foolish. No instructions are given when to perform the operation; I have tried two or three times, and utterly failed. I find that I have a grand list of "bud-variations," and to-morrow shall work up such cases as I have about rose-sports, which seem very numerous, and which I see you state to occur comparatively frequently.

In an old French book published in Amsterdam in 1786 (I think), there's an apparently authentic account from a writer who claims to be an eyewitness. It describes how hyacinth bulbs of two colors were cut in half and grafted, producing single stalks with differently colored flowers on each side, and some flowers that were multi-colored. I once considered offering a £5 reward in the "Cottage Gardener" for a plant like that, but it might seem too silly. There are no instructions on when to do the procedure; I've tried a couple of times and completely failed. I realize I have an extensive list of "bud variations," and tomorrow I plan to compile the cases I have on rose sports, which seem to be quite numerous, and I see you mention that they occur fairly frequently.

When a person is very good-natured he gets much pestered—a discovery which I daresay you have made, or anyhow will soon make; for I do want very much to know whether you have sown seed of any moss-roses, and whether the seedlings were moss-roses. (196/2. Moss-roses can be raised from seed ("Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 405.) Has a common rose produced by SEED a moss-rose?

When someone is really kind, they often get bothered a lot—something I’m sure you’ve noticed or will soon realize. I really want to know if you’ve planted any moss-rose seeds and if the seedlings turned out to be moss-roses. (196/2. You can grow moss-roses from seeds ("Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 405.) Has a regular rose produced by SEED a moss-rose?

If any light comes to you about very slight changes in the buds, pray have the kindness to illuminate me. I have cases of seven or eight varieties of the peach which have produced by "bud-variation" nectarines, and yet only one single case (in France) of a peach producing another closely similar peach (but later in ripening). How strange it is that a great change in the peach should occur not rarely and slighter changes apparently very rarely! How strange that no case seems recorded of new apples or pears or apricots by "bud-variation"! How ignorant we are! But with the many good observers now living our children's children will be less ignorant, and that is a comfort.

If you hear about any slight changes in the buds, please let me know. I have cases of seven or eight types of peach that have produced nectarines through "bud variation," yet there’s only one recorded instance (in France) of a peach producing another very similar peach (but ripening later). It's strange how a major change in peaches happens fairly often, while smaller changes seem to happen very rarely! It's odd that there are no records of new apples, pears, or apricots resulting from "bud variation"! How little we know! But with so many good observers around today, our future generations will be less in the dark, and that’s reassuring.

LETTER 197. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 7th {1867}.

Very many thanks for your letter, which has told me exactly what I wanted to know. I shall give up all thoughts of trying to get the book (197/1. Hackel's "Generelle Morphologie," 1866. See "Life and Letters," III., pages 67, 68.) translated, for I am well convinced that it would be hopeless without too great an outlay. I much regret this, as I should think the work would be useful, and I am sure it would be to me, as I shall never be able to wade through more than here and there a page of the original. To all people I cannot but think that the number of new terms would be a great evil. I must write to him. I suppose you know his address, but in case you do not, it is "to care of Signor Nicolaus Krohn, Madeira." I have sent the MS. of my big book (197/2. "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.), and horridly, disgustingly big it will be, to the printers, but I do not suppose it will be published, owing to Murray's idea on seasons, till next November. I am thinking of a chapter on Man, as there has lately been so much said on Natural Selection in relation to man. I have not seen the Duke's (or Dukelet's? how can you speak so of a living real Duke?) book, but must get it from Mudie, as you say he attacks us. (197/3. "The Reign of Law" (1867), by the late Duke of Argyll. See "Life and Letters," III., page 65.)

Thank you so much for your letter; it told me exactly what I needed to know. I will stop trying to get the book (197/1. Hackel's "Generelle Morphologie," 1866. See "Life and Letters," III., pages 67, 68.) translated, as I'm convinced it would be futile without a major investment. I really regret this, as I believe the work would be valuable, especially for me since I can barely manage to read even a page of the original. I can’t help but think that introducing too many new terms would be a big problem for everyone. I need to write to him. I’m sure you have his address, but just in case, it’s "to care of Signor Nicolaus Krohn, Madeira." I've sent the manuscript of my major book (197/2. "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.), which is going to be incredibly long, to the printers, but I doubt it will be published until next November due to Murray's thoughts on timing. I'm considering adding a chapter on Man since there's been so much discussion about Natural Selection in relation to humans lately. I haven't read the Duke's (or Dukelet's? how can you refer to a living Duke like that?) book, but I need to get it from Mudie since you mentioned he's criticizing us. (197/3. "The Reign of Law" (1867), by the late Duke of Argyll. See "Life and Letters," III., page 65.)

P.S.—Nature never made species mutually sterile by selection, nor will men.

P.S.—Nature never made species unable to reproduce with each other through selection, and neither will humans.

LETTER 197. TO E. HACKEL. Down, January 8th {1867}.

I received some weeks ago your great work (198/1. "Generelle Morphologie," 1866.); I have read several parts, but I am too poor a German scholar and the book is too large for me to read it all. I cannot tell you how much I regret this, for I am sure that nearly the whole would interest me greatly, and I have already found several parts very useful, such as the discussion on cells and on the different forms of reproduction. I feel sure, after considering the subject deliberately and after consulting with Huxley, that it would be hopeless to endeavour to get a publisher to print an English translation; the work is too profound and too long for our English countrymen. The number of new terms would also, I am sure, tell much against its sale; and, indeed, I wish for my own sake that you had printed a glossary of all the new terms which you use. I fully expect that your book will be highly successful in Germany, and the manner in which you often refer to me in your text, and your dedication and the title, I shall always look at as one of the greatest honours conferred on me during my life. (198/2. As regards the dedication and title this seems a strong expression. The title is "Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzuge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft mechanisch begrundet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie." The dedication of the second volume is "Den Begrundern der Descendenz-Theorie, den denkenden Naturforschern, Charles Darwin, Wolfgang Goethe, Jean Lamarck widmet diese Grundzuge der Allgemeinen Entwickelungsgeschichte in vorzuglicher Verehrung, der Verfasser.")

I received your impressive work a few weeks ago (198/1. "Generelle Morphologie," 1866.); I’ve read several sections, but I’m not a strong enough German scholar and the book is too extensive for me to go through it all. I can’t express how much I regret this, as I’m sure most of it would engage me deeply. I’ve already found several parts incredibly helpful, like the discussions on cells and different forms of reproduction. After carefully considering the topic and discussing it with Huxley, I’m convinced that trying to find a publisher for an English translation would be futile; the work is too deep and lengthy for our English readers. The number of new terms would likely hinder its sales as well, and I honestly wish for my own benefit that you had included a glossary of all the new terms you used. I fully expect your book to be very successful in Germany, and the way you often mention me in your text, along with your dedication and the title, I will always regard as one of the greatest honors given to me in my life. (198/2. Regarding the dedication and title, this does seem like a strong statement. The title is "Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzuge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft mechanisch begrundet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie." The dedication for the second volume is "Den Begrundern der Descendenz-Theorie, den denkenden Naturforschern, Charles Darwin, Wolfgang Goethe, Jean Lamarck widmet diese Grundzuge der Allgemeinen Entwickelungsgeschichte in vorzuglicher Verehrung, der Verfasser.")

I sincerely hope that you have had a prosperous expedition, and have met with many new and interesting animals. If you have spare time I should much like to hear what you have been doing and observing. As for myself, I have sent the MS. of my book on domestic animals, etc., to the printers. It turns out to be much too large; it will not be published, I suppose, until next November. I find that we have discussed several of the same subjects, and I think we agree on most points fairly well. I have lately heard several times from Fritz Muller, but he seems now chiefly to be working on plants. I often think of your visit to this house, which I enjoyed extremely, and it will ever be to me a real pleasure to remember our acquaintance. From what I heard in London I think you made many friends there. Shall you return through England? If so, and you can spare the time, we shall all be delighted to see you here again.

I genuinely hope you’ve had a successful expedition and encountered many new and fascinating animals. If you have some free time, I would love to hear about what you’ve been doing and observing. As for me, I’ve sent the manuscript of my book on domestic animals, etc., to the printers. It turns out to be much too lengthy; I doubt it will be published until next November. I’ve noticed that we’ve discussed several of the same topics, and I think we agree on most points pretty well. I’ve heard from Fritz Muller several times recently, but he seems to be focusing primarily on plants now. I often think about your visit to this house, which I enjoyed a lot, and I will always cherish our acquaintance. From what I gathered in London, it sounds like you made many friends there. Will you be coming back through England? If so, and if you have some time, we would all be thrilled to see you here again.

LETTER 199. TO T. RIVERS. Down, January 11th {1867?}.

How rich and valuable a letter you have most kindly sent me! The case of Baronne Prevost (199/1. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 406. Mr. Rivers had a new French rose with a delicate smooth stem, pale glaucous leaves and striped flesh-coloured flowers; on branches thus characterised there appeared "the famous old rose called 'Baronne Prevost,'" with its stout thorny stem and uniform rich-coloured double flowers.), with its different shoots, foliage, spines, and flowers, will be grand to quote. I am extremely glad to hear about the seedling moss-roses. That case of a seedling like a Scotch rose, unless you are sure that no Scotch rose grew near (and it is unlikely that you can remember), must, one would think, have been a cross.

What a rich and valuable letter you’ve kindly sent me! The case of Baronne Prevost (199/1. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 406. Mr. Rivers had a new French rose with a delicate smooth stem, pale glaucous leaves, and striped flesh-colored flowers; on branches with those characteristics, there appeared "the famous old rose called 'Baronne Prevost,'" with its sturdy thorny stem and uniform rich-colored double flowers.), with its different shoots, leaves, thorns, and flowers, will be great to reference. I'm really glad to hear about the seedling moss-roses. That case of a seedling resembling a Scotch rose, unless you’re sure that no Scotch rose was nearby (and it’s unlikely you can remember), must, one would think, have been a cross.

I have little compunction for being so troublesome—not more than a grand Inquisitor has in torturing a heretic—for am I not doing a real good public service in screwing crumbs of knowledge out of your wealth of information?

I don't feel bad at all about being such a nuisance—no more than a grand Inquisitor feels while torturing a heretic—because isn't it true I'm providing a valuable public service by squeezing bits of knowledge from your vast amount of information?

P.S. Since the above was written I have read your paper in the "Gardeners' Chronicle": it is admirable, and will, I know, be a treasure to me. I did not at all know how strictly the character of so many flowers is inherited.

P.S. Since I wrote the above, I've read your paper in the "Gardeners' Chronicle": it's amazing, and I know it'll be a valuable resource for me. I had no idea how strictly the traits of so many flowers are passed down.

On my honour, when I began this note I had no thought of troubling you with a question; but you mention one point so interesting, and which I have had occasion to notice, that I must supplicate for a few more facts to quote on your authority. You say that you have one or two seedling peaches (199/2. "On raising Peaches, Nectarines, and other Fruits from Seed." By Thomas Rivers, Sawbridgeworth.—"Gard. Chron." 1866, page 731.) approaching very nearly to thick-fleshed almonds (I know about A. Knight and the Italian hybrid cases). Now, did any almond grow near your mother peach? But especially I want to know whether you remember what shape the stone was, whether flattened like that of an almond; this, botanically, seems the most important distinction. I earnestly wish to quote this. Was the flesh at all sweet?

I promise you, when I started this note, I had no intention of bothering you with a question; however, you bring up such an interesting point, one I've noticed myself, that I need to ask for a few more details to reference your authority. You mentioned that you have a couple of seedling peaches (199/2. "On raising Peaches, Nectarines, and other Fruits from Seed." By Thomas Rivers, Sawbridgeworth.—"Gard. Chron." 1866, page 731.) that are quite similar to thick-fleshed almonds (I know about A. Knight and the Italian hybrid cases). Now, was there any almond tree close to your mother peach? But more importantly, I want to know if you recall the shape of the stone — was it flattened like an almond's? This seems to be the most significant botanical distinction. I sincerely wish to cite this. Was the flesh sweet at all?

Forgive if you can.

Forgive if possible.

Have you kept these seedling peaches? if you would give me next summer a fruit, I want to have it engraved.

Have you kept those seedling peaches? If you could give me a fruit next summer, I’d like to have it engraved.

LETTER 200. TO I. ANDERSON-HENRY. May 22nd {1867}.

You are so kind as to offer to lend me Maillet's (200/1. For De Maillet see Mr. Huxley's review on "The Origin of Species" in the "Westminster Review," 1860, reprinted in "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 314. De Maillet's evolutionary views were published after his death in 1748 under the name of Telliamed (De Maillet spelt backwards).) work, which I have often heard of, but never seen. I should like to have a look at it, and would return it to you in a short time. I am bound to read it, as my former friend and present bitter enemy Owen generally ranks me and Maillet as a pair of equal fools.

You’re so kind to offer to lend me Maillet's work, which I’ve heard a lot about but have never seen. I’d really like to take a look at it and will return it to you soon. I feel obligated to read it since my former friend and now bitter enemy Owen usually puts me and Maillet in the same category of fools.

LETTER 201. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 4th {1867}.

You have done me a very great service in sending me the pages of the "Farmer." I do not know whether you wish it returned; but I will keep it unless I hear that you want it. Old I. Anderson-Henry passes a magnificent but rather absurd eulogium on me; but the point of such extreme value in my eyes is Mr. Traill's (201/1. Mr. Traill's results are given at page 420 of "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I. In the "Life and Letters of G.J. Romanes," 1896, an interesting correspondence is published with Mr. Darwin on this subject. The plan of the experiments suggested to Romanes was to raise seedlings from graft-hybrids: if the seminal offspring of plants hybridised by grafting should show the hybrid character, it would be striking evidence in favour of pangenesis. The experiment, however, did not succeed.) statement that he made a mottled mongrel by cutting eyes through and joining two kinds of potatoes. (201/2. For an account of similar experiments now in progress, see a "Note on some Grafting Experiments" by R. Biffen in the "Annals of Botany," Volume XVI., page 174, 1902.) I have written to him for full information, and then I will set to work on a similar trial. It would prove, I think, to demonstration that propagation by buds and by the sexual elements are essentially the same process, as pangenesis in the most solemn manner declares to be the case.

You’ve done me a huge favor by sending me the pages from the "Farmer." I'm not sure if you want it back, but I’ll hang onto it unless you let me know otherwise. Old I. Anderson-Henry gives a great but somewhat silly tribute to me; however, what stands out the most to me is Mr. Traill's statement that he created a mottled hybrid by cutting eyes through and joining two types of potatoes. (Mr. Traill's results are detailed on page 420 of "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I. An interesting correspondence on this topic with Mr. Darwin is published in the "Life and Letters of G.J. Romanes," 1896. The plan for the experiments suggested to Romanes was to grow seedlings from graft-hybrids: if the offspring from plants hybridized through grafting showed hybrid characteristics, it would provide strong evidence in favor of pangenesis. The experiment, however, didn't succeed.) I’ve reached out to him for more details, and once I get that, I’ll start a similar experiment. I believe it would demonstrate that propagation by buds and by sexual elements are essentially the same process, as pangenesis seriously claims.

LETTER 202. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 12th {1867?}.

We come up on Saturday, the 15th, for a week. I want much to see you for a short time to talk about my youngest boy and the School of Mines. I know it is rather unreasonable, but you must let me come a little after 10 o'clock on Sunday morning, the 16th. If in any way inconvenient, send me a line to "6, Queen Anne Street W.,"; but if I do not hear, I will (stomacho volente) call, but I will not stay very long and spoil your whole morning as a holiday. Will you turn two or three times in your mind this question: what I called "pangenesis" means that each cell throws off an atom of its contents or a gemmule, and that these aggregated form the true ovule or bud, etc.? Now I want to know whether I could not invent a better word. "Cyttarogenesis" (202/1. From kuttaros, a bee's-cell: cytogenesis would be a natural form of the word from kutos.)—i.e. cell-genesis—is more true and expressive, but long. "Atomogenesis" sounds rather better, I think, but an "atom" is an object which cannot be divided; and the term might refer to the origin of atoms of inorganic matter. I believe I like "pangenesis" best, though so indefinite; and though my wife says it sounds wicked, like pantheism; but I am so familiar now with this word, that I cannot judge. I supplicate you to help me.

We’re coming over on Saturday, the 15th, for a week. I really want to see you for a little while to talk about my youngest son and the School of Mines. I know it’s a bit unreasonable, but please let me drop by a little after 10 o'clock on Sunday morning, the 16th. If that’s inconvenient in any way, just send me a note to "6, Queen Anne Street W." If I don’t hear from you, I’ll (stomacho volente) swing by, but I won’t stay too long and ruin your whole morning off. Can you think about this question a couple of times: what I called "pangenesis," which means that each cell releases an atom of its contents or a gemmule, and that these combine to form the true ovule or bud, etc.? Now I want to know if I could come up with a better word. "Cyttarogenesis" (202/1. From kuttaros, a bee's-cell: cytogenesis would be a natural form of the word from kutos.)—meaning cell-genesis—is more accurate and expressive, but it’s long. "Atomogenesis" sounds a bit better, I think, but an "atom" is something that can't be divided; and the term might refer to the origin of atoms of inorganic matter. I believe I prefer "pangenesis" the most, even though it’s somewhat vague; and even though my wife says it sounds bad, like pantheism; but I’m so used to this word now that I can’t make a judgment. I’m begging you to help me.

LETTER 203. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, October, 12th and 13th {1867}.

LETTER 203. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, October 12th and 13th {1867}.

I ordered the journal (203/1. "Quarterly Journal of Science," October, 1867, page 472. A review of the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of Law.") a long time ago, but by some oversight received it only yesterday, and read it. You will think my praise not worth having, from being so indiscriminate; but if I am to speak the truth, I must say I admire every word. You have just touched on the points which I particularly wished to see noticed. I am glad you had the courage to take up Angraecum (203/2. Angraecum sesquipedale, a Madagascan orchid, with a whiplike nectary, 11 to 12 inches in length, which, according to Darwin ("Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 163), is adapted to the visits of a moth with a proboscis of corresponding length. He points out that there is no difficulty in believing in the existence of such a moth as F. Muller has described ("Nature," 1873, page 223)—a Brazilian sphinx-moth with a trunk of 10 to 11 inches in length. Moreover, Forbes has given evidence to show that such an insect does exist in Madagascar ("Nature," VIII., 1873, page 121). The case of Angraecum was put forward by the Duke of Argyll as being necessarily due to the personal contrivance of the Deity. Mr. Wallace (page 476) shows that both proboscis and nectary might be increased in length by means of Natural Selection. It may be added that Hermann Muller has shown good grounds for believing that mutual specialisation of this kind is beneficial both to insect and plant.) after the Duke's attack; for I believe the principle in this case may be widely applied. I like the figure, but I wish the artist had drawn a better sphinx. With respect to beauty, your remarks on hideous objects and on flowers not being made beautiful except when of practical use to them, strike me as very good. On this one point of beauty I can hardly think that the Duke was quite candid. I have used in the concluding paragraph of my present book precisely the same argument as you have, even bringing in the bull-dog (203/3. "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page 431: "Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport?"), with respect to variations not having been specially ordained. Your metaphor of the river (203/4. See Wallace, op. cit., pages 477-8. He imagines an observer examining a great river-system, and finding everywhere adaptations which reveal the design of the Creator. "He would see special adaptation to the wants of man in broad, quiet, navigable rivers, through fertile alluvial plains that would support a large population, while the rocky streams and mountain torrents were confined to those sterile regions suitable only for a small population of shepherds and herdsmen.') is new to me, and admirable; but your other metaphor, in which you compare classification and complex machines, does not seem to me quite appropriate, though I cannot point out what seems deficient. The point which seems to me strong is that all naturalists admit that there is a natural classification, and it is this which descent explains. I wish you had insisted a little more against the "North British" (203/5. At page 485 Mr. Wallace deals with Fleeming Jenkin's review in the "North British Review," 1867. The review strives to show that there are strict limits to variation, since the most rigorous and long-continued selection does not indefinitely increase such a quality as the fleetness of a racehorse. On this Mr. Wallace remarks that "this argument fails to meet the real question," which is, not whether indefinite change is possible, "but whether such differences as do occur in nature could have been produced by the accumulation of variations by selection.") on the reviewer assuming that each variation which appears is a strongly marked one; though by implication you have made this very plain. Nothing in your whole article has struck me more than your view with respect to the limit of fleetness in the racehorse and other such cases: I shall try and quote you on this head in the proof of my concluding chapter. I quite missed this explanation, though in the case of wheat I hit upon something analogous. I am glad you praise the Duke's book, for I was much struck with it. The part about flight seemed to me at first very good; but as the wing is articulated by a ball-and-socket joint, I suspect the Duke would find it very difficult to give any reason against the belief that the wing strikes the air more or less obliquely. I have been very glad to see your article and the drawing of the butterfly in "Science Gossip." By the way, I cannot but think that you push protection too far in some cases, as with the stripes on the tiger. I have also this morning read an excellent abstract in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of your paper on nests. (203/6. An abstract of a paper on "Birds' Nests and Plumage," read before the British Association: see "Gard. Chron." 1867, page 1047.) I was not by any means fully converted by your letter, but I think now I am so; and I hope it will be published somewhere in extenso. It strikes me as a capital generalisation, and appears to me even more original than it did at first...

I ordered the journal (203/1. "Quarterly Journal of Science," October, 1867, page 472. A review of the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of Law.") quite a while ago, but due to some oversight, I only received it yesterday and read it. You might think my praise isn’t worth much because it’s so broad, but to be honest, I admire every word. You covered the points I really wanted to see addressed. I'm glad you had the guts to tackle Angraecum (203/2. Angraecum sesquipedale, a Madagascan orchid, with a whiplike nectary, 11 to 12 inches long, which, according to Darwin ("Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 163), is adapted for visits by a moth with a corresponding long proboscis. He notes that there’s no reason to doubt the existence of such a moth as F. Muller described ("Nature," 1873, page 223)—a Brazilian sphinx-moth with a trunk of 10 to 11 inches long. Moreover, Forbes has provided evidence that such an insect exists in Madagascar ("Nature," VIII., 1873, page 121). The Duke of Argyll presented the case of Angraecum as something that must have personally been designed by God. Mr. Wallace (page 476) argues that both the proboscis and nectary could become longer through Natural Selection. Additionally, Hermann Muller has shown solid reasoning for thinking this kind of mutual specialization benefits both the insect and the plant.) after the Duke's criticism; I believe this principle can be widely applied. I like the illustration, but I wish the artist had done a better job with the sphinx. Regarding beauty, your comments about ugly objects and flowers only being beautiful when it serves a purpose really resonate with me. On this specific point about beauty, I can hardly believe the Duke was fully honest. I used the same argument in the final paragraph of my current book, even mentioning the bulldog (203/3. "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page 431: "Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport?"), regarding variations not being specially designed. Your river metaphor (203/4. See Wallace, op. cit., pages 477-8. He imagines an observer studying a large river system and finding adaptations that reveal the Creator's design. "He would see specific adaptations to human needs in broad, quiet, navigable rivers across fertile alluvial plains that could support a large population, while the rocky streams and mountain torrents were confined to barren areas only suitable for a small population of shepherds and herdsmen.") is new to me and excellent; however, your other metaphor comparing classification to complex machines doesn’t quite feel right to me, although I can’t pinpoint what seems off about it. The strong point, in my opinion, is that all naturalists agree there is a natural classification, and descent explains this. I wish you had pushed back a bit more against the "North British" (203/5. At page 485, Mr. Wallace discusses Fleeming Jenkin's review in the "North British Review," 1867. The review argues that there are strict limits to variation, since even rigorous and prolonged selection does not indefinitely enhance traits like the speed of a racehorse. Mr. Wallace remarks that "this argument fails to meet the real question," which is not whether indefinite change is possible, "but whether such differences as do occur in nature could have been produced by the accumulation of variations by selection.") on the reviewer assuming that every variation is a significant one; though by implication, you made this very clear. Nothing in your entire article impacted me more than your perspective on the limits of speed in racehorses and similar cases: I will try to quote you on this in the proof of my final chapter. I completely missed this explanation, although in the case of wheat, I stumbled upon something similar. I'm glad you praised the Duke's book, as I found it quite impressive. The section about flight initially seemed great to me; however, since the wing is connected by a ball-and-socket joint, I suspect the Duke would struggle to provide a solid reason against the idea that the wing hits the air somewhat at an angle. I was very pleased to see your article and the butterfly illustration in "Science Gossip." By the way, I can't help but think you take protection a bit too far in some examples, like the stripes on the tiger. This morning, I also read a fantastic summary in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of your paper on nests. (203/6. An abstract of a paper on "Birds' Nests and Plumage," presented before the British Association: see "Gard. Chron." 1867, page 1047.) I wasn't fully convinced by your letter, but now I think I am; I hope it gets published in full somewhere. It strikes me as an excellent generalization, and it seems even more original than I first thought...

I have finished Volume I. of my book {"Variation of Animals and Plants"}, and I hope the whole will be out by the end of November. If you have the patience to read it through, which is very doubtful, you will find, I think, a large accumulation of facts which will be of service to you in future papers; and they could not be put to better use, for you certainly are a master in the noble art of reasoning.

I’ve completed Volume I of my book {"Variation of Animals and Plants"}, and I hope the entire thing will be released by the end of November. If you have the patience to read it all the way through, which seems unlikely, I think you’ll find a wealth of facts that will be helpful for your future papers; and there’s no one better to use them, as you truly excel in the great skill of reasoning.

LETTER 204. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, October 3rd {no date}.

I know you have no time for speculative correspondence; and I did not in the least expect an answer to my last. But I am very glad to have had it, for in my eclectic work the opinions of the few good men are of great value to me.

I know you don’t have time for pointless exchanges, and I really didn’t expect a response to my last message. But I’m very happy to have received it, because in my diverse work, the thoughts of a few good people mean a lot to me.

I knew, of course, of the Cuvierian view of classification (204/1. Cuvier proved that "animals cannot be arranged in a single series, but that there are several distinct plans of organisation to be observed among them, no one of which, in its highest and most complicated modification, leads to any of the others" (Huxley's "Darwiniana," page 215).); but I think that most naturalists look for something further, and search for "the natural system,"—"for the plan on which the Creator has worked," etc., etc. It is this further element which I believe to be simply genealogical.

I was aware, of course, of Cuvier's classification view (204/1. Cuvier proved that "animals cannot be arranged in a single series, but that there are several distinct plans of organization to be observed among them, none of which, in its highest and most complicated form, leads to any of the others" (Huxley's "Darwiniana," page 215)); but I think that most naturalists look for something more and seek "the natural system,"—"the plan on which the Creator has worked," etc., etc. It’s this additional element that I believe to be purely genealogical.

But I should be very glad to have your answer (either when we meet or by note) to the following case, taken by itself, and not allowing yourself to look any further than to the point in question. Grant all races of man descended from one race—grant that all the structure of each race of man were perfectly known—grant that a perfect table of the descent of each race was perfectly known—grant all this, and then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if collocated by structure alone? Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races and their pedigrees would go together.

But I would really appreciate your answer (either when we meet or by note) to the following case, considered on its own, without looking beyond the specific issue. Assume that all human races come from one ancestry—assume that we fully understand the structure of each race—assume we have a complete chart of the lineage for each race—if we assume all of this, don't you think most people would prefer a genealogical classification, even if it sometimes places one race slightly further from another than it would be if classified solely by structure? Generally, we can safely assume that the similarities among races and their lineages would align.

I should like to hear what you would say on this purely theoretical case.

I’d like to know what you think about this purely theoretical situation.

It might be asked why is development so all-potent in classification, as I fully admit it is? I believe it is because it depends on, and best betrays, genealogical descent; but this is too large a point to enter on.

It could be questioned why development is so powerful in classification, as I fully acknowledge it is. I think it’s because it relies on, and most clearly reveals, genealogical descent; however, this is too broad a topic to delve into.

LETTER 205. TO C. LYELL. Down, December 7th {1867}.

I send by this post the article in the Victorian Institute with respect to frogs' spawn. If you remember in your boyhood having ever tried to take a small portion out of the water, you will remember that it is most difficult. I believe all the birds in the world might alight every day on the spawn of batrachians, and never transport a single ovum. With respect to the young of molluscs, undoubtedly if the bird to which they were attached alighted on the sea, they would be instantly killed; but a land-bird would, I should think, never alight except under dire necessity from fatigue. This, however, has been observed near Heligoland (205/1. Instances are recorded by Gatke in his "Heligoland as an Ornithological Observatory" (translated by Rudolph Rosenstock, Edinburgh, 1895) of land-birds, such as thrushes, buntings, finches, etc., resting for a short time on the surface of the water. The author describes observations made by himself about two miles west of Heligoland (page 129).); and land-birds, after resting for a time on the tranquil sea, have been seen to rise and continue their flight. I cannot give you the reference about Heligoland without much searching. This alighting on the sea may aid you in your unexpected difficulty of the too-easy diffusion of land-molluscs by the agency of birds. I much enjoyed my morning's talk with you.

I’m sending you the article from the Victorian Institute about frog spawn. If you remember trying to take a small bit out of the water when you were a kid, you know it's really difficult. I believe all the birds in the world could land on the frog spawn every day and still never take a single egg away. As for the young of mollusks, if the bird they were stuck to landed on the ocean, they would likely die immediately; however, a land bird would probably only land out of sheer exhaustion. That said, there have been observations near Heligoland. Instances noted by Gatke in his "Heligoland as an Ornithological Observatory" (translated by Rudolph Rosenstock, Edinburgh, 1895) mention land birds, like thrushes, buntings, finches, etc., resting briefly on the water's surface. The author recounts observations he made about two miles west of Heligoland (page 129); and land birds, after resting for a while on the calm sea, have been seen taking off and continuing their flight. I can’t give you the specific reference about Heligoland without doing a lot of searching. This landing on the sea might help you with your surprising issue of how easily land mollusks could spread by birds. I really enjoyed our chat this morning.

LETTER 206. TO F. HILDEBRAND. Down, January 5th {1868}.

I thank you for your letter, which has quite delighted me. I sincerely congratulate you on your success in making a graft-hybrid (206/1. Prof. Hildebrand's paper is in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1868: the substance is given in "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 420.), for I believe it to be a most important observation. I trust that you will publish full details on this subject and on the direct action of pollen (206/2. See Prof. Hildebrand, "Bot. Zeitung," 1868, and "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 430. A yellow-grained maize was fertilised with pollen from a brown-grained one; the result was that ears were produced bearing both yellow and dark-coloured grains.): I hope that you will be so kind as to send me a copy of your paper. If I had succeeded in making a graft-hybrid of the potato, I had intended to raise seedlings from the graft-hybrid and from the two parent-forms (excluding insects) and carefully compare the offspring. This, however, would be difficult on account of the sterility and variability of the potato. When in the course of a few months you receive my second volume (206/3. This sentence may be paraphrased—"When you receive my book and read the second volume."), you will see why I think these two subjects so important. They have led me to form a hypothesis on the various forms of reproduction, development, inheritance, etc., which hypothesis, I believe, will ultimately be accepted, though how it will be now received I am very doubtful.

I appreciate your letter, which really made me happy. I sincerely congratulate you on your success in creating a graft-hybrid (206/1. Prof. Hildebrand's paper is in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1868: the information is in "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 420.), as I believe it's a significant observation. I hope you will publish detailed information on this topic and on how pollen directly acts (206/2. See Prof. Hildebrand, "Bot. Zeitung," 1868, and "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 430. A yellow-grained maize was fertilized with pollen from a brown-grained one; the result was ears that produced both yellow and dark-colored grains.): I'd appreciate it if you could send me a copy of your paper. If I had successfully created a graft-hybrid of the potato, I planned to grow seedlings from the graft-hybrid and the two parent plants (excluding insects) and carefully compare the offspring. However, this would be challenging due to the potato's sterility and variability. When you receive my second volume in a few months (206/3. This sentence may be paraphrased—"When you receive my book and read the second volume."), you will understand why I consider these two topics so important. They have led me to develop a hypothesis regarding various forms of reproduction, development, inheritance, etc., which I believe will eventually be accepted, though I'm very unsure about how it will be received right now.

Once again I congratulate you on your success.

Once again, congratulations on your success.

LETTER 207. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 6th {1868}.

Many thanks about names of plants, synonyms, and male flowers—all that I wanted.

Many thanks for the names of plants, their synonyms, and the male flowers—all that I needed.

I have been glad to see Watson's letter, and am sorry he is a renegade about Natural Selection. It is, as you say, characteristic, with the final fling at you.

I was happy to see Watson's letter, but I'm disappointed that he's turned against Natural Selection. It's typical of him, especially with that final jab at you.

His difficulty about the difference between the two genera of St. Helena Umbellifers is exactly the same as what Nageli has urged in an able pamphlet (207/1. "Ueber Entstehung und Begriff der naturhist. Art." "Sitz. der K. Bayer. Akad. Der Wiss. zu Munchen," 1865. Some of Nageli's points are discussed in the "Origin," Edition V., page 151.), and who in consequence maintains that there is some unknown innate tendency to progression in all organisms. I said in a letter to him that of course I could not in the least explain such cases; but that they did not seem to me of overwhelming force, as long as we are quite ignorant of the meaning of such structures, whether they are of any service to the plants, or inevitable consequences of modifications in other parts.

His struggle with the difference between the two types of Umbellifers from St. Helena is exactly the same as what Nageli pointed out in a well-written pamphlet (207/1. "Ueber Entstehung und Begriff der naturhist. Art." "Sitz. der K. Bayer. Akad. Der Wiss. zu Munchen," 1865. Some of Nageli's points are discussed in the "Origin," Edition V., page 151.), and as a result, he argues that there is some unknown innate drive for progress in all organisms. I mentioned in a letter to him that, of course, I couldn't really explain such cases; however, they didn't seem particularly compelling to me as long as we are completely in the dark about the significance of such structures, whether they benefit the plants or are simply unavoidable results of changes in other parts.

I cannot understand what Watson means by the "counter-balance in nature" to divergent variation. There is the counterbalance of crossing, of which my present work daily leads me to see more and more the efficiency; but I suppose he means something very different. Further, I believe variation to be divergent solely because diversified forms can best subsist. But you will think me a bore.

I can’t grasp what Watson means by the "counter-balance in nature" to divergent variation. There’s the counterbalance of crossing, which my current work makes me increasingly aware of. But I assume he means something completely different. Additionally, I think variation is divergent mainly because diverse forms are better able to survive. But you probably find me tedious.

I enclose half a letter from F. Muller (which please return) for the chance of your liking to see it; though I have doubted much about sending it, as you are so overworked. I imagine the Solanum-like flower is curious.

I’m including half a letter from F. Muller (please return it) in case you’d like to see it; although I've hesitated to send it because you have so much on your plate. I guess the Solanum-like flower is interesting.

I heard yesterday to my joy that Dr. Hildebrand has been experimenting on the direct action of pollen on the mother-plant with success. He has also succeeded in making a true graft-hybrid between two varieties of potatoes, in which I failed. I look at this as splendid for pangenesis, as being strong evidence that bud-reproduction and seminal reproduction do not essentially differ.

I heard with delight yesterday that Dr. Hildebrand has successfully been experimenting with the direct effects of pollen on the mother plant. He also managed to create a true graft-hybrid between two potato varieties, which I wasn't able to achieve. I see this as a fantastic development for pangenesis, providing strong evidence that bud reproduction and seed reproduction aren’t fundamentally different.

My book is horribly delayed, owing to the accursed index-maker. (207/2. Darwin thoroughly appreciated the good work put into the index of "The Variation of Animals and Plants.") I have almost forgotten it!

My book is really behind schedule because of the terrible index-maker. (207/2. Darwin really valued the effort that went into the index of "The Variation of Animals and Plants.") I've nearly forgotten about it!

LETTER 208. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 30th {1868}.

Most sincere thanks for your kind congratulations. I never received a note from you in my life without pleasure; but whether this will be so after you have read pangenesis (208/1. In Volume II. of "Animals and Plants, 1868.), I am very doubtful. Oh Lord, what a blowing up I may receive! I write now partly to say that you must not think of looking at my book till the summer, when I hope you will read pangenesis, for I care for your opinion on such a subject more than for that of any other man in Europe. You are so terribly sharp-sighted and so confoundedly honest! But to the day of my death I will always maintain that you have been too sharp-sighted on hybridism; and the chapter on the subject in my book I should like you to read: not that, as I fear, it will produce any good effect, and be hanged to you.

Thank you so much for your kind congratulations. I’ve always enjoyed receiving notes from you, but I’m not sure how I’ll feel about it after you read pangenesis (208/1. In Volume II. of "Animals and Plants, 1868.). I dread the backlash I might get! I’m writing to let you know that you shouldn’t look at my book until summer when I hope you’ll read pangenesis, because I value your opinion on this topic more than anyone else's in Europe. You are incredibly insightful and frustratingly honest! But for the rest of my life, I’ll continue to believe that you’ve been too perceptive about hybridism; I’d love for you to read the chapter on that subject in my book, even though I worry it won’t have any good impact, and honestly, whatever.

I rejoice that your children are all pretty well. Give Mrs. Huxley the enclosed (208/2. Queries on Expression.), and ask her to look out when one of her children is struggling and just going to burst out crying. A dear young lady near here plagued a very young child for my sake, till it cried, and saw the eyebrows for a second or two beautifully oblique, just before the torrent of tears began.

I’m glad to hear that your kids are all doing well. Please give Mrs. Huxley the enclosed (208/2. Queries on Expression.), and ask her to pay attention when one of her kids is about to cry. A sweet young lady nearby annoyed a very young child for my sake until it cried, and she noticed its eyebrows were beautifully angled for a second or two just before the tears started flowing.

The sympathy of all our friends about George's success (it is the young Herald) (208/3. His son George was Second Wrangler in 1868; as a boy he was an enthusiast in heraldry.) has been a wonderful pleasure to us. George has not slaved himself, which makes his success the more satisfactory. Farewell, my dear Huxley, and do not kill yourself with work.

The support from all our friends regarding George's success (it's the young Herald) (208/3. His son George was Second Wrangler in 1868; as a boy he was really into heraldry.) has been a great joy for us. George hasn’t worked himself to the bone, which makes his success even more rewarding. Goodbye, my dear Huxley, and don’t overwork yourself.

(209/1. The following group of letters deals with the problem of the causes of the sterility of hybrids. Mr. Darwin's final view is given in the "Origin," sixth edition (page 384, edition 1900). He acknowledges that it would be advantageous to two incipient species, if by physiological isolation due to mutual sterility, they could be kept from blending: but he continues, "After mature reflection it seems to me that this could not have been effected through Natural Selection." And finally he concludes (page 386):—

(209/1. The following group of letters addresses the issue of why hybrids are sterile. Mr. Darwin's final perspective is presented in the "Origin," sixth edition (page 384, edition 1900). He admits that it would benefit two emerging species if they could remain isolated due to mutual sterility and avoid blending. However, he adds, "After careful consideration, I believe this couldn’t have happened through Natural Selection." Ultimately, he concludes (page 386):—

"But it would be superfluous to discuss this question in detail; for with plants we have conclusive evidence that the sterility of crossed species must be due to some principle quite independent of Natural Selection. Both Gartner and Kolreuter have proved that in genera including numerous species, a series can be formed from species which when crossed yield fewer and fewer seeds, to species which never produce a single seed, but yet are affected by the pollen of certain other species, for the germen swells. It is here manifestly impossible to select the more sterile individuals, which have already ceased to yield seeds; so that this acme of sterility, when the germen alone is affected, cannot have been gained through selection; and from the laws governing the various grades of sterility being so uniform throughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms, we may infer that the cause, whatever it may be, is the same or nearly the same in all cases."

"But it would be unnecessary to discuss this question in detail; because with plants we have clear evidence that the sterility of crossed species must result from some principle entirely independent of Natural Selection. Both Gartner and Kolreuter have shown that in genera containing many species, we can form a series from species that, when crossed, produce fewer and fewer seeds, down to species that never produce a single seed, yet are influenced by the pollen of certain other species, causing the ovary to swell. It is clearly impossible to select the more sterile individuals that have already stopped producing seeds; thus, this extreme level of sterility, when only the ovary is affected, cannot have been achieved through selection. And since the laws governing various levels of sterility are so consistent throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, we can infer that the cause, whatever it is, is the same or very similar in all cases."

Mr. Wallace, on the other hand, still adheres to his view: see his "Darwinism," 1889, page 174, and for a more recent statement see page 292, note 1, Letter 211, and page 299.

Mr. Wallace, on the other hand, still holds to his perspective: see his "Darwinism," 1889, page 174, and for a more recent statement, see page 292, note 1, Letter 211, and page 299.

The discussion of 1868 began with a letter from Mr. Wallace, written towards the end of February, giving his opinion on the "Variation of Animals and Plants;" the discussion on the sterility of hybrids is at page 185, Volume II., of the first edition.)

The discussion of 1868 started with a letter from Mr. Wallace, written in late February, sharing his thoughts on the "Variation of Animals and Plants;" the conversation about the sterility of hybrids can be found on page 185, Volume II, of the first edition.)

LETTER 209. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. February 1868.

The only parts I have yet met with where I somewhat differ from your views, are in the chapter on the causes of variability, in which I think several of your arguments are unsound: but this is too long a subject to go into now. Also, I do not see your objection to sterility between allied species having been aided by Natural Selection. It appears to me that, given a differentiation of a species into two forms, each of which was adapted to a special sphere of existence, every slight degree of sterility would be a positive advantage, not to the individuals who were sterile, but to each form. If you work it out, and suppose the two incipient species a...b to be divided into two groups, one of which contains those which are fertile when the two are crossed, the other being slightly sterile, you will find that the latter will certainly supplant the former in the struggle for existence; remembering that you have shown that in such a cross the offspring would be more vigorous than the pure breed, and therefore would certainly soon supplant them, and as these would not be so well adapted to any special sphere of existence as the pure species a and b, they would certainly in their turn give way to a and b.

The only parts I've come across where I somewhat disagree with your views are in the chapter on the causes of variability, where I think some of your arguments are flawed. But that's too long a topic to discuss right now. Also, I don't understand your objection to the idea that sterility between related species could be supported by Natural Selection. It seems to me that if a species differentiates into two forms, each adapted to a specific environment, even a slight level of sterility would actually benefit each form—not the sterile individuals themselves. If you analyze it, and assume the two emerging species a and b are divided into two groups, one containing those that are fertile when crossed and the other being slightly sterile, you'll see that the latter will likely outcompete the former in the fight for survival. Remember, you've indicated that in such a cross, the offspring would be more robust than the pure breed, so they would quickly replace them. Since these offspring wouldn't be as well-suited to any specific environment as the pure species a and b, they would eventually be overtaken by a and b.

LETTER 210. TO A.R. WALLACE. February 27th {1868}.

I shall be very glad to hear, at some future day, your criticisms on the "causes of variability." Indeed, I feel sure that I am right about sterility and Natural Selection. Two of my grown-up children who are acute reasoners have two or three times at intervals tried to prove me wrong; and when your letter came they had another try, but ended by coming back to my side. I do not quite understand your case, and we think that a word or two is misplaced. I wish some time you would consider the case under the following point of view. If sterility is caused or accumulated through Natural Selection, then, as every degree exists up to absolute barrenness, Natural Selection must have the power of increasing it. Now take two species A and B, and assume that they are (by any means) half-sterile, i.e., produce half the full number of offspring. Now try and make (by Natural Selection) A and B absolutely sterile when crossed, and you will find how difficult it is. I grant, indeed it is certain, that the degree of the sterility of the individuals of A and B will vary; but any such extra-sterile individuals of, we will say A, if they should hereafter breed with other individuals of A, will bequeath no advantage to their progeny, by which these families will tend to increase in number over other families of A, which are not more sterile when crossed with B. But I do not know that I have made this any clearer than in the chapter in my book. It is a most difficult bit of reasoning, which I have gone over and over again on paper with diagrams. (210/1. This letter appeared in "Life and Letters," III., page 80.)

I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts on the "causes of variability" at some point in the future. I’m quite confident about my views on sterility and Natural Selection. Two of my adult children, who are sharp thinkers, have tried to prove me wrong a couple of times, and when your letter arrived, they gave it another shot but ended up agreeing with me again. I don't fully understand your argument, and I think there are a couple of words that are out of place. I’d like you to consider the issue from this perspective: If sterility is caused or accumulated through Natural Selection, then, since every degree exists up to complete barrenness, Natural Selection must have the ability to increase it. Now, let's take two species, A and B, and assume they are (by some means) half-sterile, meaning they produce only half the full number of offspring. If you try to make A and B completely sterile when crossed through Natural Selection, you'll find it really challenging. I admit it's definitely true that the degree of sterility in individuals of A and B will vary; however, any extra-sterile individuals of A, if they later mate with other individuals of A, won’t pass on any advantage to their offspring, meaning those families won’t increase in number compared to other families of A that aren’t more sterile when crossed with B. But I’m not sure I’ve clarified this any better than in the chapter in my book. It's a really tough concept to grasp, which I’ve gone over repeatedly on paper with diagrams. (210/1. This letter appeared in "Life and Letters," III., page 80.)

LETTER 211. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. March 1st, 1868.

I beg to enclose what appears to me a demonstration on your own principles, that Natural Selection could produce sterility of hybrids. If it does not convince you, I shall be glad if you will point out where the fallacy lies. I have taken the two cases of a slight sterility overcoming perfect fertility, and of a perfect sterility overcoming a partial fertility,—the beginning and end of the process. You admit that variations in fertility and sterility occur, and I think you will also admit that if I demonstrate that a considerable amount of sterility would be advantageous to a variety, that is sufficient proof that the slightest variation in that direction would be useful also, and would go on accumulating.

I am enclosing what seems to be a demonstration based on your own principles, showing that Natural Selection could lead to hybrid sterility. If it doesn’t convince you, I would appreciate it if you could point out where the flaw is. I’ve focused on two scenarios: slight sterility surpassing perfect fertility, and perfect sterility surpassing partial fertility—the start and end of the process. You agree that variations in fertility and sterility happen, and I believe you will also agree that if I can show that a significant amount of sterility would benefit a variety, that’s enough evidence that even a slight variation in that direction would also be helpful and would continue to accumulate.

1. Let there be a species which has varied into two forms, each adapted to existing conditions (211/1. "Existing conditions," means of course new conditions which have now come into existence. And the "two" being both better adapted than the parent form, means that they are better adapted each to a special environment in the same area—as one to damp, another to dry places; one to woods, another to open grounds, etc., etc., as Darwin had already explained. A.R.W. (1899).) better than the parent form, which they supplant.

1. Imagine a species that has evolved into two different forms, each suited to the new conditions that have emerged. Both forms are better adapted than the original, meaning each one fits into a specific environment within the same area—one for damp places and the other for dry areas; one for forests and the other for open fields, and so on, as Darwin already explained. A.R.W. (1899).

2. If these two forms, which are supposed to co-exist in the same district, do not intercross, Natural Selection will accumulate favourable variations, till they become sufficiently well adapted to their conditions of life and form two allied species.

2. If these two forms, which are meant to coexist in the same area, do not overlap, Natural Selection will gather helpful variations until they become well-suited to their living conditions and develop into two related species.

3. But if these two forms freely intercross with each other and produce hybrids which are also quite fertile inter se, then the formation of the two distinct races or species will be retarded or perhaps entirely prevented; for the offspring of the crossed unions will be more vigorous owing to the cross, although less adapted to their conditions of life than either of the pure breeds. (211/2. After "pure breeds," add "because less specialised." A.R.W. (1899).)

3. But if these two forms freely mix with each other and create hybrids that are also quite fertile among themselves, then the development of the two distinct races or species will be slowed down or possibly completely stopped; because the offspring of the mixed unions will be stronger due to the cross, even though they will be less suited to their living conditions than either of the pure breeds. (211/2. After "pure breeds," add "because less specialised." A.R.W. (1899).)

4. Now let a partial sterility of some individuals of these two forms arise when they intercross; and as this would probably be due to some special conditions of life, we may fairly suppose it to arise in some definite portion of the area occupied by the two forms.

4. Now let's assume that some individuals of these two forms become partially sterile when they interbreed; and since this is likely caused by specific life conditions, we can reasonably assume it occurs in a particular part of the area where the two forms exist.

5. The result is that in this area hybrids will not increase so rapidly as before; and as by the terms of the problem the two pure forms are better suited to the conditions of life than the hybrids, they will tend to supplant the latter altogether whenever the struggle for existence becomes severe.

5. As a result, hybrids won’t grow as quickly in this area as they did before; and since the two pure forms are better adapted to the living conditions than the hybrids, they will likely replace the hybrids entirely whenever competition for survival gets tough.

6. We may fairly suppose, also, that as soon as any sterility appears under natural conditions, it will be accompanied by some disinclination to cross-unions; and this will further diminish the production of hybrids.

6. We can reasonably assume that as soon as any sterility shows up in natural conditions, it will be accompanied by some reluctance to cross-breeding, which will further reduce the production of hybrids.

7. In the other part of the area, however, where hybridism occurs unchecked, hybrids of various degrees will soon far outnumber the parent or pure form.

7. In another part of the area, however, where hybridization happens freely, hybrids of various types will soon greatly outnumber the parent or pure forms.

8. The first result, then, of a partial sterility of crosses appearing in one part of the area occupied by the two forms, will be, that the GREAT MAJORITY of the individuals will there consist of the pure forms only, while in the rest of the area these will be in a minority,—which is the same as saying, that the new sterile or physiological variety of the two forms will be better suited to the conditions of existence than the remaining portion which has not varied physiologically.

8. The first result of partial sterility of crosses in one area occupied by the two forms is that the vast majority of individuals will consist only of the pure forms, while the pure forms will be in the minority in the rest of the area. This means that the new sterile or physiological variety of the two forms will be better adapted to the conditions of existence than the portion that hasn’t undergone any physiological changes.

9. But when the struggle for existence becomes severe, that variety which is best adapted to the conditions of existence always supplants that which is imperfectly adapted; therefore by Natural Selection the sterile varieties of the two forms will become established as the only ones.

9. But when the competition for survival gets intense, the variety that is best suited to the conditions will always replace the one that is less suited; therefore, through Natural Selection, the non-reproductive varieties of the two forms will become the only ones that thrive.

10. Now let a fresh series of variations in the amount of sterility and in the disinclination to crossed unions occur,—also in certain parts of the area: exactly the same result must recur, and the progeny of this new physiological variety again in time occupy the whole area.

10. Now let's have a new set of changes in the level of sterility and in the willingness to crossbreed, also in specific regions of the area: the same outcome should happen again, and the offspring of this new physiological variety will eventually spread throughout the entire area.

11. There is yet another consideration that supports this view. It seems probable that the variations in amount of sterility would to some extent concur with and perhaps depend upon the structural variations; so that just in proportion as the two forms diverged and became better adapted to the conditions of existence, their sterility would increase. If this were the case, then Natural Selection would act with double strength, and those varieties which were better adapted to survive both structurally and physiologically, would certainly do so. (211/3. The preceding eleven paragraphs are substantially but not verbally identical with the statement of the argument in Mr. Wallace's "Darwinism," 1889. Pages 179, 180, note 1.)

11. There's another point that supports this idea. It seems likely that the differences in sterility levels would somewhat match and maybe depend on the structural differences; so as the two forms diverge and become more suited to their living conditions, their sterility would increase. If that's the case, then Natural Selection would work even more effectively, and those varieties that were better adapted to survive both structurally and physiologically would definitely succeed. (211/3. The preceding eleven paragraphs are substantially but not verbally identical with the statement of the argument in Mr. Wallace's "Darwinism," 1889. Pages 179, 180, note 1.)

12. Let us now consider the more difficult case of two allied species A, B, in the same area, half the individuals of each (As, Bs) being absolutely sterile, the other half (Af, Bf) being partially fertile: will As, Bs ultimately exterminate Af, Bf?

12. Now let's think about the more challenging situation of two related species A and B in the same area, where half of the individuals in each group (As, Bs) are completely sterile, while the other half (Af, Bf) are only partially fertile: will As and Bs eventually eliminate Af and Bf?

13. To avoid complication, it must be granted, that between As and Bs no cross-unions take place, while between Af and Bf cross-unions are as frequent as direct unions, though much less fertile. We must also leave out of consideration crosses between As and Af, Bs and Bf, with their various approaches to sterility, as I believe they will not affect the final result, although they will greatly complicate the problem.

13. To keep things simple, it should be acknowledged that there are no cross-unions between As and Bs, while cross-unions between Af and Bf happen as often as direct unions, although they are much less productive. We should also ignore crosses between As and Af, Bs and Bf, and their different levels of sterility, since I believe they won’t influence the final outcome, even though they will complicate the issue significantly.

14. In the first generation there will result: 1st, The pure progeny of As and Bs; 2nd, The pure progeny of Af and of Bf; and 3rd, The hybrid progeny of Af, Bf.

14. In the first generation, there will be: 1st, The pure offspring of As and Bs; 2nd, The pure offspring of Af and Bf; and 3rd, The hybrid offspring of Af and Bf.

15. Supposing that, in ordinary years, the increased constitutional vigour of the hybrids exactly counterbalances their imperfect adaptations to conditions, there will be in the second generation, besides these three classes, hybrids of the second degree between the first hybrids and Af and Bf respectively. In succeeding generations there will be hybrids of all degrees, varying between the first hybrids and the almost pure types of Af and Bf.

15. Assuming that, in normal years, the increased constitutional strength of the hybrids perfectly offsets their inadequate adaptations to conditions, there will be in the second generation, in addition to these three classes, hybrids of the second degree between the first hybrids and Af and Bf respectively. In subsequent generations, there will be hybrids of all degrees, ranging from the first hybrids to the nearly pure types of Af and Bf.

16. Now, if at first the number of individuals of As, Bs, Af and Bf were equal, and year after year the total number continues stationary, I think it can be proved that, while half will be the pure progeny of As and Bs, the other half will become more and more hybridised, until the whole will be hybrids of various degrees.

16. Now, if at first the number of individuals of As, Bs, Af, and Bf were equal, and year after year the total number remains constant, I believe it can be shown that while half will be the pure offspring of As and Bs, the other half will become increasingly hybridized until the entire group consists of hybrids with varying degrees.

17. Now, this hybrid and somewhat intermediate race cannot be so well adapted to the conditions of life as the two pure species, which have been formed by the minute adaptation to conditions through Natural Selection; therefore, in a severe struggle for existence, the hybrids must succumb, especially as, by hypothesis, their fertility would not be so great as that of the two pure species.

17. Now, this mixed and somewhat intermediate race can’t adapt to life conditions as well as the two pure species, which have evolved through Natural Selection; therefore, in a tough struggle for survival, the hybrids will likely fail, especially since, by assumption, their ability to reproduce wouldn’t be as high as that of the two pure species.

18. If we were to take into consideration the unions of As with Af and Bs with Bf, the results would become very complicated, but it must still lead to there being a number of pure forms entirely derived from As and Bs, and of hybrid forms mainly derived from Af and Bf; and the result of the struggle of these two sets of individuals cannot be doubtful.

18. If we consider the unions of As with Af and Bs with Bf, the outcomes would get pretty complicated, but it would still result in several pure forms that come entirely from As and Bs, and hybrid forms that are mainly derived from Af and Bf; and the outcome of the competition between these two groups of individuals is certain.

19. If these arguments are sound, it follows that sterility may be accumulated and increased, and finally made complete by Natural Selection, whether the sterile varieties originate together in a definite portion of the area occupied by the two species, or occur scattered over the whole area. (211/4. The first part of this discussion should be considered alone, as it is both more simple and more important. I now believe that the utility, and therefore the cause of sterility between species, is during the process of differentiation. When species are fully formed, the occasional occurrence of hybrids is of comparatively small importance, and can never be a danger to the existence of the species. A.R.W. (1899).)

19. If these points are valid, then sterility can build up and increase, eventually leading to complete sterility through Natural Selection, regardless of whether the sterile varieties emerge together in a specific part of the area inhabited by the two species or are spread throughout the entire area. (211/4. The first part of this discussion should be considered alone, as it is both simpler and more significant. I now believe that the usefulness, and thus the reason for sterility between species, occurs during the process of differentiation. Once species are fully established, the occasional appearance of hybrids is relatively minor and poses no real threat to the survival of the species. A.R.W. (1899).)

P.S.—In answer to the objection as to the unequal sterility of reciprocal crosses ("Variation, etc." Volume II., page 186) I reply that, as far as it went, the sterility of one cross would be advantageous even if the other cross was fertile: and just as characters now co-ordinated may have been separately accumulated by Natural Selection, so the reciprocal crosses may have become sterile one at a time.

P.S.—In response to the concern about the unequal sterility of reciprocal crosses ("Variation, etc." Volume II., page 186), I point out that, even if one cross is sterile and the other is fertile, the sterility of one would still be beneficial. Just as traits that are now combined might have been developed individually through Natural Selection, the reciprocal crosses could have become sterile one at a time.

LETTER 212. TO A.R. WALLACE. 4, Chester Place, March 17th, 1868.

(212/1. Mr. Darwin had already written a short note to Mr. Wallace expressing a general dissent from his view.)

(212/1. Mr. Darwin had already written a brief note to Mr. Wallace expressing general disagreement with his perspective.)

I do not feel that I shall grapple with the sterility argument till my return home; I have tried once or twice, and it has made my stomach feel as if it had been placed in a vice. Your paper has driven three of my children half mad—one sat up till 12 o'clock over it. My second son, the mathematician, thinks that you have omitted one almost inevitable deduction which apparently would modify the result. He has written out what he thinks, but I have not tried fully to understand him. I suppose that you do not care enough about the subject to like to see what he has written.

I don’t think I’ll tackle the sterility argument until I get home; I’ve tried a couple of times, and it made my stomach feel like it was in a vise. Your paper has driven three of my kids half crazy—one was up until midnight reading it. My second son, the mathematician, believes you missed an almost certain conclusion that could change the results. He’s written down his thoughts, but I haven’t fully followed him. I assume you’re not interested enough in the subject to want to see what he’s written.

LETTER 212A. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, March, 24th {1868}.

LETTER 212A. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, March 24, 1868.

I return your son's notes with my notes on them. Without going into any details, is not this a strong general argument?

I’m sending back your son’s notes with my comments on them. Without getting into specifics, isn’t this a compelling general argument?

1. A species varies occasionally in two directions, but owing to their free intercrossing the varieties never increase.

1. A species sometimes varies in two directions, but because they freely interbreed, the varieties never increase.

2. A change of conditions occurs which threatens the existence of the species; but the two varieties are adapted to the changing conditions, and if accumulated will form two new species adapted to the new conditions.

2. A shift in conditions happens that puts the species at risk; however, both varieties are suited to the changing environment, and if they accumulate, they will develop into two new species that are adapted to the new conditions.

3. Free crossing, however, renders this impossible, and so the species is in danger of extinction.

3. Free crossing, however, makes this impossible, and so the species is at risk of extinction.

4. If sterility would be induced, then the pure races would increase more rapidly, and replace the old species.

4. If sterility were to be induced, then the pure breeds would grow more quickly and replace the old species.

5. It is admitted that partial sterility between varieties does occasionally occur. It is admitted {that} the degree of this sterility varies; is it not probable that Natural Selection can accumulate these variations, and thus save the species? If Natural Selection can NOT do this, how do species ever arise, except when a variety is isolated?

5. It's acknowledged that partial sterility among varieties does sometimes happen. It's recognized that the level of this sterility varies; isn't it likely that Natural Selection can build on these variations and thereby preserve the species? If Natural Selection can’t do this, how do species ever come into existence, other than when a variety is isolated?

Closely allied species in distinct countries being sterile is no difficulty; for either they diverged from a common ancestor in contact, and Natural Selection increased the sterility, or they were isolated, and have varied since: in which case they have been for ages influenced by distinct conditions which may well produce sterility.

Closely related species in different countries being sterile isn't an issue; either they branched off from a common ancestor while in contact, and Natural Selection enhanced the sterility, or they were separated and have evolved differently since then: in this case, they've been influenced by different conditions for a long time, which could certainly lead to sterility.

If the difficulty of grafting was as great as the difficulty of crossing, and as regular, I admit it would be a most serious objection. But it is not. I believe many distinct species can be grafted, while others less distinct cannot. The regularity with which natural species are sterile together, even when very much alike, I think is an argument in favour of the sterility having been generally produced by Natural Selection for the good of the species.

If grafting were as challenging as crossing, and just as consistent, I would agree that it would be a major concern. But it’s not. I believe many different species can be successfully grafted, while some that are less distinct cannot. The way natural species often can't reproduce with each other, even when they look very similar, suggests to me that this sterility was mostly created by Natural Selection to benefit the species.

The other difficulty, of unequal sterility of reciprocal crosses, seems none to me; for it is a step to more complete sterility, and as such would be increased by selection.

The other issue, related to the uneven sterility of reciprocal crosses, doesn't seem like a problem to me; it's actually a move towards greater sterility, and would therefore be enhanced through selection.

LETTER 213. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 6th {1868}.

I have been considering the terrible problem. Let me first say that no man could have more earnestly wished for the success of Natural Selection in regard to sterility than I did; and when I considered a general statement (as in your last note) I always felt sure it could be worked out, but always failed in detail. The cause being, as I believe, that Natural Selection cannot effect what is not good for the individual, including in this term a social community. It would take a volume to discuss all the points, and nothing is so humiliating to me as to agree with a man like you (or Hooker) on the premises and disagree about the result.

I've been thinking about this huge issue. First, I want to say that no one could have wanted Natural Selection to succeed regarding sterility more than I did. Whenever I thought about a general statement (like in your last note), I always felt confident it could be worked out, but I continually struggled with the details. I believe the reason is that Natural Selection can't achieve something that doesn't benefit the individual, including in terms of a social community. It would take a whole book to cover all the points, and nothing is more frustrating for me than to agree with someone like you (or Hooker) on the basic ideas but disagree on the outcome.

I agree with my son's argument and not with the rejoinder. The cause of our difference, I think, is that I look at the number of offspring as an important element (all circumstances remaining the same) in keeping up the average number of individuals within any area. I do not believe that the amount of food by any means is the sole determining cause of number. Lessened fertility is equivalent to a new source of destruction. I believe if in one district a species produced from any cause fewer young, the deficiency would be supplied from surrounding districts. This applies to your Paragraph 5. (213/1. See Letter 211.) If the species produced fewer young from any cause in every district, it would become extinct unless its fertility were augmented through Natural Selection (see H. Spencer).

I agree with my son's point but not with the counterargument. The reason for our disagreement, I believe, is that I see the number of offspring as a key factor (assuming all other conditions are equal) in maintaining the average population in any area. I don't think that food supply is the only factor that determines population size. Reduced fertility acts like a new source of destruction. I think if a species in one area produces fewer young for any reason, that gap would be filled by species from surrounding areas. This relates to your Paragraph 5. (213/1. See Letter 211.) If a species produced fewer young for any reason in every area, it would go extinct unless its fertility was increased through Natural Selection (see H. Spencer).

I demur to probability and almost to possibility of Paragraph 1., as you start with two forms within the same area, which are not mutually sterile, and which yet have supplanted the parent-form.

I hesitate regarding the likelihood and almost the feasibility of Paragraph 1, as you begin with two forms in the same domain that are not mutually exclusive and yet have replaced the original form.

(Paragraph 6.) I know of no ghost of a fact supporting belief that disinclination to cross accompanies sterility. It cannot hold with plants, or the lower fixed aquatic animals. I saw clearly what an immense aid this would be, but gave it up. Disinclination to cross seems to have been independently acquired, probably by Natural Selection; and I do not see why it would not have sufficed to have prevented incipient species from blending to have simply increased sexual disinclination to cross.

(Paragraph 6.) I know of no evidence that supports the idea that a reluctance to mate is linked to sterility. This doesn't seem to apply to plants or stationary aquatic animals. I realized how incredibly helpful this could be, but I let it go. The reluctance to mate appears to have developed on its own, likely through Natural Selection; and I don’t understand why simply increasing the disinclination to mate wouldn't be enough to stop early species from interbreeding.

(Paragraph 11.) I demur to a certain extent to amount of sterility and structural dissimilarity necessarily going together, except indirectly and by no means strictly. Look at vars. of pigeons, fowls, and cabbages.

(Paragraph 11.) I hesitate to fully agree with the idea that sterility and structural dissimilarity always go hand in hand, except in an indirect way and not strictly at all. Just look at the varieties of pigeons, chickens, and cabbages.

I overlooked the advantage of the half-sterility of reciprocal crosses; yet, perhaps from novelty, I do not feel inclined to admit probability of Natural Selection having done its work so queerly.

I missed the benefit of the half-sterility in reciprocal crosses; however, maybe because it's new to me, I don't feel ready to accept the likelihood that Natural Selection has operated in such a strange way.

I will not discuss the second case of utter sterility, but your assumptions in Paragraph 13 seem to me much too complicated. I cannot believe so universal an attribute as utter sterility between remote species was acquired in so complex a manner. I do not agree with your rejoinder on grafting: I fully admit that it is not so closely restricted as crossing, but this does not seem to me to weaken the case as one of analogy. The incapacity of grafting is likewise an invariable attribute of plants sufficiently remote from each other, and sometimes of plants pretty closely allied.

I won’t go into the second case of complete sterility, but your ideas in Paragraph 13 seem way too complicated to me. I can't accept that something as widespread as complete sterility between distant species developed in such a complex way.

The difficulty of increasing the sterility through Natural Selection of two already sterile species seems to me best brought home by considering an actual case. The cowslip and primrose are moderately sterile, yet occasionally produce hybrids. Now these hybrids, two or three or a dozen in a whole parish, occupy ground which might have been occupied by either pure species, and no doubt the latter suffer to this small extent. But can you conceive that any individual plants of the primrose and cowslip which happened to be mutually rather more sterile (i.e. which, when crossed, yielded a few less seed) than usual, would profit to such a degree as to increase in number to the ultimate exclusion of the present primrose and cowslip? I cannot.

The challenge of enhancing sterility through Natural Selection in two already sterile species is best illustrated by looking at a real case. The cowslip and primrose are moderately sterile, yet they sometimes produce hybrids. These hybrids, whether two, three, or a dozen in an entire parish, take up space that could have been filled by either pure species, and it's likely that the latter are affected to some extent. But can you imagine that any individual plants of the primrose and cowslip that happen to be slightly more sterile (meaning when crossed, they produce fewer seeds) than usual would benefit enough to increase in number to eventually replace the existing primrose and cowslip? I can't.

My son, I am sorry to say, cannot see the full force of your rejoinder in regard to second head of continually augmented sterility. You speak in this rejoinder, and in Paragraph 5, of all the individuals becoming in some slight degree sterile in certain districts: if you were to admit that by continued exposure to these same conditions the sterility would inevitably increase, there would be no need of Natural Selection. But I suspect that the sterility is not caused so much by any particular conditions as by long habituation to conditions of any kind. To speak according to pangenesis, the gemmules of hybrids are not injured, for hybrids propagate freely by buds; but their reproductive organs are somehow affected, so that they cannot accumulate the proper gemmules, in nearly the same manner as the reproductive organs of a pure species become affected when exposed to unnatural conditions.

My son, I'm sorry to say, can't fully grasp the impact of your response regarding the increased sterility. In this response, and in Paragraph 5, you mention that many individuals in certain areas are becoming somewhat sterile. If you were to accept that ongoing exposure to these conditions would inevitably lead to increased sterility, there would be no need for Natural Selection. However, I suspect that the sterility isn't really caused by specific conditions, but rather by prolonged adaptation to any conditions. To put it in terms of pangenesis, the gemmules of hybrids remain unharmed, as hybrids reproduce easily through budding; however, their reproductive organs are somehow impacted, preventing them from gathering the right gemmules, similar to how the reproductive organs of a pure species are affected when subjected to unnatural conditions.

This is a very ill-expressed and ill-written letter. Do not answer it, unless the spirit urges you. Life is too short for so long a discussion. We shall, I greatly fear, never agree.

This is a poorly written and unclear letter. Don't reply to it unless you really feel compelled to. Life is too short for such a lengthy debate. I'm afraid we will never see eye to eye.

LETTER 214. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, {April?} 8th, 1868.

I am sorry you should have given yourself the trouble to answer my ideas on sterility. If you are not convinced, I have little doubt but that I am wrong; and, in fact, I was only half convinced by my own arguments, and I now think there is about an even chance that Natural Selection may or may not be able to accumulate sterility. If my first proposition is modified to the existence of a species and a variety in the same area, it will do just as well for my argument. Such certainly do exist. They are fertile together, and yet each maintains itself tolerably distinct. How can this be, if there is no disinclination to crossing?

I’m sorry you took the time to respond to my thoughts on sterility. If you aren’t convinced, I have no doubt that I might be wrong; in fact, I was only half convinced by my own arguments, and now I believe there’s about a 50-50 chance that Natural Selection can or cannot produce sterility. If I change my initial proposition to include a species and a variety living in the same area, that would work just as well for my argument. They definitely exist. They can reproduce together and still maintain their distinct identities. How can this be if there’s no aversion to crossing?

My belief certainly is that number of offspring is not so important an element in keeping up population of a species as supply of food and other favourable conditions; because the numbers of a species constantly vary greatly in different parts of its own area, whereas the average number of offspring is not a very variable element.

My belief is definitely that the number of offspring isn’t as crucial for maintaining a species' population as the availability of food and other favorable conditions. This is because the population numbers of a species can vary greatly in different parts of its habitat, while the average number of offspring remains relatively stable.

However, I will say no more, but leave the problem as insoluble, only fearing that it will become a formidable weapon in the hands of the enemies of Natural Selection.

However, I won't say anything more, but I'll leave the problem unsolved, just worrying that it will become a powerful weapon for the opponents of Natural Selection.

LETTER 215. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(215/1. The following extract from a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker (dated April 3rd, 1868) refers to his Presidential Address for the approaching meeting of the British Association at Norwich.

(215/1. The following extract from a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker (dated April 3rd, 1868) refers to his Presidential Address for the upcoming meeting of the British Association in Norwich.

Some account of Sir Joseph's success is given in the "Life and Letters," III., page 100, also in Huxley's "Life," Volume I., page 297, where Huxley writes to Darwin:—

Some details about Sir Joseph's success can be found in the "Life and Letters," III., page 100, and also in Huxley's "Life," Volume I., page 297, where Huxley writes to Darwin:—

"We had a capital meeting at Norwich, and dear old Hooker came out in great force, as he always does in emergencies. The only fault was the terrible 'Darwinismus' which spread over the section and crept out when you least expected it, even in Fergusson's lecture on 'Buddhist Temples.' You will have the rare happiness to see your ideas triumphant during your lifetime.

"We had an important meeting in Norwich, and dear old Hooker really showed up strong, as he always does in emergencies. The only downside was the awful 'Darwinism' that spread throughout the section and popped up when you least expected it, even during Fergusson's lecture on 'Buddhist Temples.' You will have the rare joy of seeing your ideas succeed during your lifetime."

"P.S.—I am going into opposition; I can't stand it.")

"P.S.—I'm going to oppose this; I can’t take it anymore.")

Down, April 3rd {1868}.

Down, April 3, 1868.

I have been thinking over your Presidential Address; I declare I made myself quite uncomfortable by fancying I had to do it, and feeling myself utterly dumbfounded.

I have been reflecting on your Presidential Address; I admit I made myself pretty uncomfortable by thinking I had to address it, and I felt completely stunned.

But I do not believe that you will find it so difficult. When you come to Down I shall be very curious to hear what your ideas are on the subject.

But I don't think you'll find it that hard. When you come to Down, I'll be really interested to hear your thoughts on the topic.

Could you make anything out of a history of the great steps in the progress of Botany, as representing the whole of Natural History? Heaven protect you! I suppose there are men to whom such a job would not be so awful as it appears to me...If you had time, you ought to read an article by W. Bagehot in the April number of the "Fortnightly" (215/2. "Physic and Politics," "Fortnightly Review," Volume III., page 452, 1868.), applying Natural Selection to early or prehistoric politics, and, indeed, to late politics,—this you know is your view.

Could you make anything out of the history of the major advancements in Botany as a representation of all of Natural History? Goodness! I guess there are people who wouldn’t find such a task as daunting as it seems to me… If you had time, you should read an article by W. Bagehot in the April issue of the "Fortnightly" (215/2. "Physic and Politics," "Fortnightly Review," Volume III., page 452, 1868.), which applies Natural Selection to both early or prehistoric politics and, in fact, to more recent politics—this, as you know, aligns with your perspective.

LETTER 216. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. 9, St. Mark's Crescent, N.W., August 16th {1868}.

I ought to have written before to thank you for the copies of your papers on Primula and on "Cross-unions of Dimorphic Plants, etc." The latter is particularly interesting and the conclusion most important; but I think it makes the difficulty of how these forms, with their varying degrees of sterility, originated, greater than ever. If "natural selection" could not accumulate varying degrees of sterility for the plant's benefit, then how did sterility ever come to be associated with one cross of a trimorphic plant rather than another? The difficulty seems to be increased by the consideration that the advantage of a cross with a distinct individual is gained just as well by illegitimate as by legitimate unions. By what means, then, did illegitimate unions ever become sterile? It would seem a far simpler way for each plant's pollen to have acquired a prepotency on another individual's stigma over that of the same individual, without the extraordinary complication of three differences of structure and eighteen different unions with varying degrees of sterility!

I should have written sooner to thank you for the copies of your papers on Primula and on "Cross-unions of Dimorphic Plants, etc." The latter is especially intriguing, and the conclusion is really significant; however, I think it raises the question of how these forms, with their different levels of sterility, originated even more. If "natural selection" couldn't accumulate varying levels of sterility for the plant's benefit, how did sterility end up being linked to one cross of a trimorphic plant instead of another? This issue seems to become more complicated when considering that the benefit of a cross with a distinct individual can be achieved through both illegitimate and legitimate unions. So how did illegitimate unions end up being sterile? It seems much simpler for each plant's pollen to gain an advantage over another individual's stigma compared to that of the same individual, without the complex situation of three structural differences and eighteen different unions with varying levels of sterility!

However, the fact remains an excellent answer to the statement that sterility of hybrids proves the absolute distinctness of the parents.

However, the fact remains a solid response to the claim that the sterility of hybrids proves the complete separation of the parent species.

I have been reading with great pleasure Mr. Bentham's last admirable address (216/1. "Proc. Linn. Soc." 1867-8, page lvii.), in which he so well replies to the gross misstatements of the "Athenaeum;" and also says award in favour of pangenesis. I think we may now congratulate you on having made a valuable convert, whose opinions on the subject, coming so late and being evidently so well considered, will have much weight.

I have been enjoying Mr. Bentham's latest impressive address (216/1. "Proc. Linn. Soc." 1867-8, page lvii.), in which he effectively counters the blatant inaccuracies of the "Athenaeum;" and also supports the idea of pangenesis. I believe we can now congratulate you on having gained a valuable supporter, whose insights on the topic, arriving so late and being clearly well thought out, will carry a lot of significance.

I am going to Norwich on Tuesday to hear Dr. Hooker, who I hope will boldly promulgate "Darwinism" in his address. (216/2. Sir Joseph Hooker's Presidential Address at the British Association Meeting.) Shall we have the pleasure of seeing you there?

I’m going to Norwich on Tuesday to hear Dr. Hooker, who I hope will confidently promote "Darwinism" in his speech. (216/2. Sir Joseph Hooker's Presidential Address at the British Association Meeting.) Will we get the chance to see you there?

I am engaged in negociations about my book.

I am in negotiations about my book.

Hoping you are well and getting on with your next volumes.

Hoping you're doing well and working on your next volumes.

(216/3. We are permitted by Mr. Wallace to append the following note as to his more recent views on the question of Natural Selection and sterility:—

(216/3. Mr. Wallace has allowed us to include the following note regarding his latest thoughts on Natural Selection and sterility:—

"When writing my "Darwinism," and coming again to the consideration of this problem of the effect of Natural Selection in accumulating variations in the amount of sterility between varieties or incipient species twenty years later, I became more convinced, than I was when discussing with Darwin, of the substantial accuracy of my argument. Recently a correspondent who is both a naturalist and a mathematician has pointed out to me a slight error in my calculation at page 183 (which does not, however, materially affect the result), disproving the 'physiological selection' of the late Dr. Romanes, but he can see no fallacy in my argument as to the power of Natural Selection to increase sterility between incipient species, nor, so far as I am aware, has any one shown such fallacy to exist.

"When I was writing my "Darwinism" and revisiting the issue of how Natural Selection impacts the accumulation of variations in the level of sterility between varieties or early species twenty years later, I became even more convinced than I was when I discussed it with Darwin about the accuracy of my argument. Recently, a correspondent who is both a naturalist and a mathematician pointed out a minor error in my calculation on page 183 (which doesn’t significantly affect the overall result), disproving the 'physiological selection' of the late Dr. Romanes, but he couldn't find any flaw in my argument regarding the ability of Natural Selection to enhance sterility between incipient species, and to my knowledge, no one else has demonstrated such a flaw either."

"On the other points on which I differed from Mr. Darwin in the foregoing discussion—the effect of high fertility on population of a species, etc.—I still hold the views I then expressed, but it would be out of place to attempt to justify them here."

"Regarding the other points where I disagreed with Mr. Darwin in the previous discussion—the impact of high fertility on a species' population, etc.—I still maintain the views I expressed then, but it wouldn't be appropriate to try to justify them here."

A.R.W. (1899).)

A.R.W. (1899)

LETTER 217. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 4th {1867}.

With respect to the points in your note, I may sometimes have expressed myself with ambiguity. At the end of Chapter XXIII., where I say that marked races are not often (you omit "often") produced by changed conditions (217/1. "Hence, although it must be admitted that new conditions of life do sometimes definitely affect organic beings, it may be doubted whether well-marked races have often been produced by the direct action of changed conditions without the aid of selection either by man or nature." ("Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 292, 1868.)), I intended to refer to the direct action of such conditions in causing variation, and not as leading to the preservation or destruction of certain forms. There is as wide a difference in these two respects as between voluntary selection by man and the causes which induce variability. I have somewhere in my book referred to the close connection between Natural Selection and the action of external conditions in the sense which you specify in your note. And in this sense all Natural Selection may be said to depend on changed conditions. In the "Origin" I think I have underrated (and from the cause which you mention) the effects of the direct action of external conditions in producing varieties; but I hope in Chapter XXIII. I have struck as fair a balance as our knowledge permits.

Regarding the points in your note, I may have sometimes expressed myself ambiguously. At the end of Chapter XXIII., where I mention that distinct races are not usually (you left out "usually") produced by altered conditions (217/1. "Hence, although it must be admitted that new conditions of life do sometimes definitely affect organic beings, it may be doubted whether well-marked races have often been produced by the direct action of changed conditions without the aid of selection either by man or nature." ("Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 292, 1868.)), I meant to indicate the direct effect of these conditions on causing variation, rather than on the preservation or extinction of certain forms. There's a significant difference between these two aspects, similar to the difference between voluntary selection by humans and the factors that cause variability. In my book, I've mentioned the close relationship between Natural Selection and the influence of external conditions in the sense you highlight in your note. In this regard, all Natural Selection could be said to be dependent on altered conditions. In the "Origin," I believe I have undervalued (and due to the reason you mentioned) the impacts of the direct influence of external conditions in creating varieties; however, I hope in Chapter XXIII. I have achieved as fair a balance as our understanding allows.

It is wonderful to me that you have patience to read my slips, and I cannot but regret, as they are so imperfect; they must, I think, give you a wrong impression, and had I sternly refused, you would perhaps have thought better of my book. Every single slip is greatly altered, and I hope improved.

It’s amazing to me that you have the patience to read my mistakes, and I can’t help but feel bad about them being so imperfect; I think they might give you a wrong impression, and if I had strongly declined, you might have thought more highly of my book. Each mistake is significantly changed, and I hope improved.

With respect to the human ovule, I cannot find dimensions given, though I have often seen the statement. My impression is that it would be just or barely visible if placed on a clear piece of glass. Huxley could answer your question at once.

With regard to the human egg, I can't find any measurements provided, even though I've often come across that claim. My impression is that it would be about the size of something just visible if placed on a clear piece of glass. Huxley could answer your question right away.

I have not been well of late, and have made slow progress, but I think my book will be finished by the middle of November.

I haven't been feeling well lately and have been making slow progress, but I believe my book will be done by the middle of November.

LETTER 218. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. {End of February, 1868}

I am in the second volume of your book, and I have been astonished at the immense number of interesting facts you have brought together. I read the chapter on pangenesis first, for I could not wait. I can hardly tell you how much I admire it. It is a positive comfort to me to have any feasible explanation of a difficulty that has always been haunting me, and I shall never be able to give it up till a better one supplies its place,—and that I think hardly possible. You have now fairly beaten Spencer on his own ground, for he really offered no solution of the difficulties of the problem. The incomprehensible minuteness and vast numbers of the physiological germs or atoms (which themselves must be compounded of numbers of Spencer's physiological units) is the only difficulty; but that is only on a par with the difficulties in all conceptions of matter, space, motion, force, etc.

I’m currently reading the second volume of your book, and I’m amazed by the vast array of interesting facts you've compiled. I jumped straight into the chapter on pangenesis because I couldn’t wait. I can’t express enough how much I admire it. It’s such a relief to have any plausible explanation for a problem that has always troubled me, and I won’t be able to let it go until something better comes along—which I think is unlikely. You’ve definitely outdone Spencer on his own turf, as he really didn’t provide any answers to the challenges of the issue. The tiny, countless physiological germs or atoms (which must be made up of many of Spencer’s physiological units) are the only challenge; but that’s just as complex as the issues in all ideas of matter, space, motion, force, and so on.

As I understood Spencer, his physiological units were identical throughout each species, but slightly different in each different species; but no attempt was made to show how the identical form of the parent or ancestors came to be built up of such units.

As I understood Spencer, his physiological units were the same across all species, but varied slightly in each different species; however, no effort was made to explain how the identical structure of the parent or ancestors was made up of these units.

LETTER 219. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, February 27th {1868}.

You cannot well imagine how much I have been pleased by what you say about pangenesis. None of my friends will speak out, except to a certain extent Sir H. Holland, who found it very tough reading, but admits that some view "closely akin to it" will have to be admitted. Hooker, as far as I understand him, which I hardly do at present, seems to think that the hypothesis is little more than saying that organisms have such and such potentialities. What you say exactly and fully expresses my feelings—viz., that it is a relief to have some feasible explanation of the various facts, which can be given up as soon as any better hypothesis is found. It has certainly been an immense relief to my mind; for I have been stumbling over the subject for years, dimly seeing that some relation existed between the various classes of facts. I now hear from H. Spencer that his views quoted in my footnote refer to something quite distinct, as you seem to have perceived. (219/1. This letter is published in "Life and Letters," III., page 79.)

You can’t imagine how happy I am with what you say about pangenesis. None of my friends will speak up, except to some degree Sir H. Holland, who found it pretty difficult to read but admits that some viewpoint "closely related to it" will need to be accepted. From what I gather, which isn’t much right now, Hooker seems to think that the hypothesis is just saying that organisms have certain potentialities. What you say perfectly captures my feelings—that it’s a relief to have a workable explanation for the various facts, which can be discarded as soon as a better hypothesis comes along. It has definitely been a huge relief for me because I’ve been wrestling with this topic for years, vaguely sensing that some connection existed among the different classes of facts. I just heard from H. Spencer that his views mentioned in my footnote refer to something entirely different, as you seem to have noticed. (219/1. This letter is published in "Life and Letters," III., page 79.)

LETTER 220. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, March 1st, 1868.

...Sir C. Lyell spoke to me as if he has greatly admired pangenesis. I am very glad H. Spencer at once acknowledges that his view was something quite distinct from yours. Although, as you know, I am a great admirer of his, I feel how completely his view failed to go to the root of the matter, as yours does. His explained nothing, though he was evidently struggling hard to find an explanation. Yours, as far as I can see, explains everything in growth and reproduction—though, of course, the mystery of life and consciousness remains as great as ever.

...Sir C. Lyell talked to me like he really admired pangenesis. I’m very glad H. Spencer immediately recognized that his perspective was quite different from yours. Although, as you know, I deeply respect his work, I see how his viewpoint completely misses the core of the issue, unlike yours. His didn’t explain anything, even though he was clearly working hard to find an explanation. Yours, as far as I can tell, accounts for everything in growth and reproduction—though, of course, the mystery of life and consciousness is still as profound as ever.

Parts of the chapter on pangenesis I found hard reading, and have not quite mastered yet, and there are also throughout the discussions in Volume II. many bits of hard reading, on minute points which we, who have not worked experimentally at cultivation and crossing, as you have done, can hardly see the importance of, or their bearing on the general question.

Parts of the chapter on pangenesis were difficult for me to understand, and I haven't fully grasped them yet. Throughout the discussions in Volume II, there are many challenging sections on specific details that those of us who haven't done hands-on work with cultivation and breeding, like you have, can hardly appreciate their significance or how they relate to the bigger picture.

If I am asked, I may perhaps write an article on the book for some periodical, and, if so, shall do what I can to make "Pangenesis" appreciated...

If I'm asked, I might write an article about the book for a magazine, and if I do, I'll do my best to help more people appreciate "Pangenesis."

(220/1. In "Nature," May 25th, 1871, page 69, appeared a letter on pangenesis from Mr. A.C. Ranyard, dealing with the difficulty that the "sexual elements produced upon the scion" have not been shown to be affected by the stock. Mr. Darwin, in an annotated copy of this letter, disputes the accuracy of the statement, but adds: "THE BEST OBJECTION YET RAISED." He seems not to have used Mr. Ranyard's remarks in the 2nd edition of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," 1875.)

(220/1. In "Nature," May 25th, 1871, page 69, there was a letter about pangenesis from Mr. A.C. Ranyard, discussing the issue that the "sexual elements produced on the scion" haven't been shown to be influenced by the stock. Mr. Darwin, in his annotated copy of this letter, questions the accuracy of that statement but also adds: "THE BEST OBJECTION YET RAISED." It seems he didn't incorporate Mr. Ranyard's comments in the 2nd edition of "Variation of Animals and Plants," 1875.)

LETTER 221. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 21st {1868}.

I know that you have been overworking yourself, and that makes you think that you are doing nothing in science. If this is the case (which I do not believe), your intellect has all run to letter-writing, for I never in all my life received a pleasanter one than your last. It greatly amused us all. How dreadfully severe you are on the Duke (221/1. The late Duke of Argyll, whose "Reign of Law" Sir J.D. Hooker had been reading.): I really think too severe, but then I am no fair judge, for a Duke, in my eyes, is no common mortal, and not to be judged by common rules! I pity you from the bottom of my soul about the address (221/2. Sir Joseph was President of the British Association at Norwich in 1868: see "Life and Letters," III., page 100. The reference to "Insular Floras" is to Sir Joseph's lecture at the Nottingham meeting of the British Association in 1866: see "Life and Letters," III., page 47.): it makes my flesh creep; but when I pitied you to Huxley, he would not join at all, and would only say that you did and delivered your Insular Flora lecture so admirably in every way that he would not bestow any pity on you. He felt certain that you would keep your head high up. Nevertheless, I wish to God it was all over for your sake. I think, from several long talks, that Huxley will give an excellent and original lecture on Geograph. Distrib. of birds. I have been working very hard—too hard of late—on Sexual Selection, which turns out a gigantic subject; and almost every day new subjects turn up requiring investigation and leading to endless letters and searches through books. I am bothered, also, with heaps of foolish letters on all sorts of subjects, but I am much interested in my subject, and sometimes see gleams of light. All my other letters have prevented me indulging myself in writing to you; but I suddenly found the locust grass (221/3. No doubt the plants raised from seeds taken from locust dung sent by Mr. Weale from South Africa. The case is mentioned in the fifth edition of the "Origin," published in 1869, page 439.) yesterday in flower, and had to despatch it at once. I suppose some of your assistants will be able to make the genus out without great trouble. I have done little in experiment of late, but I find that mignonette is absolutely sterile with pollen from the same plant. Any one who saw stamen after stamen bending upwards and shedding pollen over the stigmas of the same flower would declare that the structure was an admirable contrivance for self-fertilisation. How utterly mysterious it is that there should be some difference in ovules and contents of pollen-grains (for the tubes penetrate own stigma) causing fertilisation when these are taken from any two distinct plants, and invariably leading to impotence when taken from the same plant! By Jove, even Pan. (221/4. Pangenesis.) won't explain this. It is a comfort to me to think that you will be surely haunted on your death-bed for not honouring the great god Pan. I am quite delighted at what you say about my book, and about Bentham; when writing it, I was much interested in some parts, but latterly I thought quite as poorly of it as even the "Athenaeum." It ought to be read abroad for the sake of the booksellers, for five editions have come or are coming out abroad! I am ashamed to say that I have read only the organic part of Lyell, and I admire all that I have read as much as you. It is a comfort to know that possibly when one is seventy years old one's brain may be good for work. It drives me mad, and I know it does you too, that one has no time for reading anything beyond what must be read: my room is encumbered with unread books. I agree about Wallace's wonderful cleverness, but he is not cautious enough in my opinion. I find I must (and I always distrust myself when I differ from him) separate rather widely from him all about birds' nests and protection; he is riding that hobby to death. I never read anything so miserable as Andrew Murray's criticism on Wallace in the last number of his Journal. (221/5. See "Journal of Travel and Natural History," Volume I., No. 3, page 137, London, 1868, for Andrew Murray's "Reply to Mr. Wallace's Theory of Birds' Nests," which appeared in the same volume, page 73. The "Journal" came to an end after the publication of one volume for 1867-8.) I believe this Journal will die, and I shall not cry: what a contrast with the old "Natural History Review."

I know you've been working way too hard, and it makes you feel like you're not making any progress in science. If that's true (which I don't believe), then all your smarts must have gone into letter-writing, because I've never received a nicer letter than your last one. It really made us all laugh. You're being so harsh on the Duke (221/1. The late Duke of Argyll, whose "Reign of Law" Sir J.D. Hooker had been reading.): I think you're too harsh, but I can't be a fair judge because a Duke, to me, isn't an ordinary person and shouldn’t be held to ordinary standards! I genuinely feel sorry for you about the address (221/2. Sir Joseph was President of the British Association at Norwich in 1868: see "Life and Letters," III., page 100. The reference to "Insular Floras" is to Sir Joseph's lecture at the Nottingham meeting of the British Association in 1866: see "Life and Letters," III., page 47.): it makes my skin crawl; but when I mentioned my sympathy for you to Huxley, he wouldn’t hear it and only said that you presented your Insular Flora lecture so brilliantly in every way that he couldn't pity you. He was sure you'd hold your head high. Still, I wish it were all over for your sake. I think from several long conversations that Huxley will give an excellent and original lecture on the Geographic Distribution of birds. I’ve been working really hard—too hard lately—on Sexual Selection, which turns out to be a massive topic; and almost every day, new subjects come up that need investigation, leading to endless letters and searches through books. I’m also overwhelmed with piles of pointless letters about all kinds of topics, but I’m really interested in my work and sometimes see flashes of insight. All my other letters have kept me from writing to you, but I suddenly found the locust grass (221/3. No doubt the plants raised from seeds taken from locust dung sent by Mr. Weale from South Africa. The case is mentioned in the fifth edition of the "Origin," published in 1869, page 439.) in bloom yesterday and had to send it right away. I suppose some of your assistants will figure out the genus without too much trouble. I haven’t done much experimenting lately, but I find that mignonette is completely sterile with pollen from the same plant. Anyone who saw stamen after stamen bending upwards and releasing pollen over the stigmas of the same flower would say the structure is a brilliant design for self-fertilization. How utterly puzzling it is that there’s some difference in ovules and the contents of pollen grains (because the tubes penetrate their own stigma) causing fertilization when taken from two different plants, but always leading to failure when taken from the same plant! My goodness, even Pan (221/4. Pangenesis.) won’t explain this. It comforts me to think that you’ll surely be haunted on your deathbed for not honoring the great god Pan. I’m really pleased with what you say about my book and about Bentham; when I was writing it, I was quite intrigued by some parts, but lately, I've thought as poorly of it as even the "Athenaeum." It should be read internationally for the sake of the booksellers, as five editions have come out or are coming out overseas! I’m embarrassed to admit that I've only read the organic part of Lyell, but I admire everything I’ve read as much as you do. It's reassuring to know that possibly when one is seventy years old, one’s brain might still be good for work. It drives me nuts, and I know it does you too, that there's no time to read anything beyond what absolutely must be read: my room is piled high with unread books. I agree about Wallace's incredible cleverness, but I think he’s not cautious enough. I find I must (and I always doubt myself when I disagree with him) separate myself quite a bit from him on everything about birds' nests and protection; he’s riding that hobby horse to death. I've never read anything as awful as Andrew Murray's criticism of Wallace in the latest issue of his Journal. (221/5. See "Journal of Travel and Natural History," Volume I., No. 3, page 137, London, 1868, for Andrew Murray's "Reply to Mr. Wallace's Theory of Birds' Nests," which was published in the same volume, page 73. The "Journal" ended after publishing one volume for 1867-8.) I believe this Journal will fade away, and I won’t mourn it: what a difference from the old "Natural History Review."

LETTER 222. TO J.D. HOOKER. Freshwater, Isle of Wight, July 28th {1868}.

LETTER 222. TO J.D. HOOKER. Freshwater, Isle of Wight, July 28, 1868.

I am glad to hear that you are going (222/1. In his Presidential Address at Norwich.) to touch on the statement that the belief in Natural Selection is passing away. I do not suppose that even the "Athenaeum" would pretend that the belief in the common descent of species is passing away, and this is the more important point. This now almost universal belief in the evolution (somehow) of species, I think may be fairly attributed in large part to the "Origin." It would be well for you to look at the short Introduction of Owen's "Anat. of Invertebrates," and see how fully he admits the descent of species.

I’m glad to hear that you’re going to address the idea that belief in Natural Selection is fading away. I doubt even the "Athenaeum" would claim that the belief in the common descent of species is disappearing, and that’s the more crucial point. This almost universal belief in the evolution of species, I think, can largely be credited to the "Origin." It would be beneficial for you to check out the short introduction in Owen's "Anat. of Invertebrates" and see how openly he acknowledges the descent of species.

Of the "Origin," four English editions, one or two American, two French, two German, one Dutch, one Italian, and several (as I was told) Russian editions. The translations of my book on "Variation under Domestication" are the results of the "Origin;" and of these two English, one American, one German, one French, one Italian, and one Russian have appeared, or will soon appear. Ernst Hackel wrote to me a week or two ago, that new discussions and reviews of the "Origin" are continually still coming out in Germany, where the interest on the subject certainly does not diminish. I have seen some of these discussions, and they are good ones. I apprehend that the interest on the subject has not died out in North America, from observing in Professor and Mrs. Agassiz's Book on Brazil how exceedingly anxious he is to destroy me. In regard to this country, every one can judge for himself, but you would not say interest was dying out if you were to look at the last number of the "Anthropological Review," in which I am incessantly sneered at. I think Lyell's "Principles" will produce a considerable effect. I hope I have given you the sort of information which you want. My head is rather unsteady, which makes my handwriting worse than usual.

Of the "Origin," there are four English editions, one or two American, two French, two German, one Dutch, one Italian, and several, as I’ve been told, Russian editions. The translations of my book on "Variation under Domestication" are the results of the "Origin;" and of these, two English, one American, one German, one French, one Italian, and one Russian have been published or will be soon. Ernst Haeckel wrote to me a week or two ago, saying that new discussions and reviews of the "Origin" are still coming out in Germany, where interest in the topic certainly hasn't diminished. I've seen some of these discussions, and they’re quite good. I fear that the interest in the subject hasn’t died out in North America, as I noticed in Professor and Mrs. Agassiz's book on Brazil how determined he is to discredit me. As for this country, everyone can judge for themselves, but you wouldn't say interest is fading if you looked at the latest issue of the "Anthropological Review," where I’m continually mocked. I believe Lyell's "Principles" will have a significant impact. I hope I’ve provided the kind of information you want. My head is a bit shaky, which makes my handwriting worse than usual.

If you argue about the non-acceptance of Natural Selection, it seems to me a very striking fact that the Newtonian theory of gravitation, which seems to every one now so certain and plain, was rejected by a man so extraordinarily able as Leibnitz. The truth will not penetrate a preoccupied mind.

If you debate the rejection of Natural Selection, I find it very noteworthy that the Newtonian theory of gravity, which everyone now sees as so certain and clear, was dismissed by someone as exceptionally talented as Leibniz. The truth won't get through to a distracted mind.

Wallace (222/2. Wallace, "Westminster Review," July, 1867. The article begins: "There is no more convincing proof of the truth of a comprehensive theory, than its power of absorbing and finding a place for new facts, and its capability of interpreting phenomena, which had been previously looked upon as unaccountable anomalies..." Mr. Wallace illustrates his statement that "a false theory will never stand this test," by Edward Forbes' "polarity" speculations (see page 84 of the present volume) and Macleay's "Circular" and "Quinarian System" published in his "Horae Entomologicae," 1821, and developed by Swainson in the natural history volumes of "Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia." Mr. Wallace says that a "considerable number of well-known naturalists either spoke approvingly of it, or advocated similar principles, and for a good many years it was decidedly in the ascendant...yet it quite died out in a few short years, its very existence is now a matter of history, and so rapid was its fall that...Swainson, perhaps, lived to be the last man who believed in it. Such is the course of a false theory. That of a true one is very different, as may be well seen by the progress of opinion on the subject of Natural Selection."

Wallace (222/2. Wallace, "Westminster Review," July, 1867. The article begins: "There's no better proof of a comprehensive theory's truth than its ability to absorb new facts and explain phenomena that used to be seen as unexplainable anomalies..." Mr. Wallace shows that "a false theory will never withstand this test" using Edward Forbes' "polarity" ideas (see page 84 of this volume) and Macleay's "Circular" and "Quinarian System" published in "Horae Entomologicae," 1821, which was further developed by Swainson in the natural history volumes of "Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia." Mr. Wallace notes that a "considerable number of well-known naturalists either endorsed it or supported similar ideas, and for a significant amount of time it was definitely in the spotlight...yet it quickly faded away in just a few short years, its very existence is now part of history, and so swift was its decline that...Swainson may have been the last person who believed in it. This is the fate of a false theory. The fate of a true one is quite different, as can be clearly seen in the evolving opinion on the topic of Natural Selection."

Here, (page 3) follows a passage on the overwhelming importance of Natural Selection, underlined with apparent approval in Mr. Darwin's copy of the review.), in the "Westminster Review," in an article on Protection has a good passage, contrasting the success of Natural Selection and its growth with the comprehension of new classes of facts (222/3. This rather obscure phrase may be rendered: "its power of growth by the absorption of new facts."), with false theories, such as the Quinarian Theory, and that of Polarity, by poor Forbes, both of which were promulgated with high advantages and the first temporarily accepted.

Here on (page 3), there's a section about the crucial significance of Natural Selection, highlighted with clear approval in Mr. Darwin's copy of the review. In the "Westminster Review," an article on Protection includes a strong passage that compares the success and development of Natural Selection with the understanding of new types of facts (222/3. This somewhat unclear phrase could be interpreted as: "its ability to grow by incorporating new facts."), alongside misleading theories like the Quinarian Theory and the Polarity theory proposed by the unfortunate Forbes, both of which were promoted with significant advantages, and the first was temporarily accepted.

LETTER 223. TO G.H. LEWES.

(223/1. The following is printed from a draft letter inscribed by Mr. Darwin "Against organs having been formed by direct action of medium in distinct organisms. Chiefly luminous and electric organs and thorns." The draft is carelessly written, and all but illegible.)

(223/1. The following is printed from a draft letter written by Mr. Darwin "Against organs being formed by the direct action of the medium in distinct organisms. Mainly luminous and electric organs and thorns." The draft is poorly written and nearly impossible to read.)

August 7th, 1868.

August 7, 1868.

If you mean that in distinct animals, parts or organs, such for instance as the luminous organs of insects or the electric organs of fishes, are wholly the result of the external and internal conditions to which the organs have been subjected, in so direct and inevitable a manner that they could be developed whether of use or not to their possessor, I cannot admit {your view}. I could almost as soon admit that the whole structure of, for instance, a woodpecker, had thus originated; and that there should be so close a relation between structure and external circumstances which cannot directly affect the structure seems to me to {be} inadmissible. Such organs as those above specified seem to me much too complex and generally too well co-ordinated with the whole organisation, for the admission that they result from conditions independently of Natural Selection. The impression which I have taken, studying nature, is strong, that in all cases, if we could collect all the forms which have ever lived, we should have a close gradation from some most simple beginning. If similar conditions sufficed, without the aid of Natural Selection, to give similar parts or organs, independently of blood relationship, I doubt much whether we should have that striking harmony between the affinities, embryological development, geographical distribution, and geological succession of all allied organisms. We should be much more puzzled than we now are how to class, in a natural method, many forms. It is puzzling enough to distinguish between resemblance due to descent and to adaptation; but (fortunately for naturalists), owing to the strong power of inheritance, and to excessively complex causes and laws of variability, when the same end or object has been gained, somewhat different parts have generally been modified, and modified in a different manner, so that the resemblances due to descent and adaptation can commonly be distinguished. I should just like to add, that we may understand each other, how I suppose the luminous organs of insects, for instance, to have been developed; but I depend on conjectures, for so few luminous insects exist that we have no means of judging, by the preservation to the present day of slightly modified forms, of the probable gradations through which the organs have passed. Moreover, we do not know of what use these organs are. We see that the tissues of many animals, {as} certain centipedes in England, are liable, under unknown conditions of food, temperature, etc., to become occasionally luminous; just like the {illegible}: such luminosity having been advantageous to certain insects, the tissues, I suppose, become specialised for this purpose in an intensified degree; in certain insects in one part, in other insects in other parts of the body. Hence I believe that if all extinct insect-forms could be collected, we should have gradations from the Elateridae, with their highly and constantly luminous thoraxes, and from the Lampyridae, with their highly luminous abdomens, to some ancient insects occasionally luminous like the centipede.

If you’re saying that specific organs or parts in different animals, like the light-emitting organs of insects or the electric organs of fish, are entirely the result of their external and internal conditions in such a clear and direct way that they could develop whether they were useful or not to the organisms themselves, I can't agree with that. It would be just as reasonable to claim that the entire structure of a woodpecker developed in that way; and to think there’s such a close relationship between structure and external conditions, which don’t directly influence the structure, seems unacceptable to me. Organs like those mentioned above appear far too complex and generally too well integrated with the entire organism for me to believe they arose from conditions without Natural Selection. My impression from studying nature is strong that if we could gather every form that has ever existed, we’d see a close progression from some very simple beginnings. If similar conditions alone, without Natural Selection, were enough to create similar organs or parts independently of lineage, I seriously doubt we would see such a striking harmony among the affinities, embryological development, geographical distribution, and geological succession of all related organisms. We would be much more confused than we are now regarding how to classify many forms in a natural way. It’s already tricky enough to differentiate between resemblance due to descent and to adaptation; but fortunately for naturalists, because of the strong power of inheritance, and due to extremely complex causes and laws of variability, even when the same outcome has been achieved, different parts are generally modified in varied ways, allowing us to usually distinguish between similarities from descent and those from adaptation. I’d just like to add, for clarity, how I think the light-emitting organs of insects, for example, developed; but I rely on speculation since there are so few luminescent insects that we can’t judge, based on existing slightly modified forms, the probable stages through which the organs have evolved. Furthermore, we don’t fully understand their purpose. We observe that the tissues of various animals, like certain centipedes in England, can become luminescent under unknown food, temperature, and other conditions; similar to the {illegible}: this luminosity seems to have been beneficial to certain insects, leading to a specialization of the tissues for this purpose to a greater extent; in some insects in one area and in others in different parts of the body. Therefore, I believe that if we could compile all extinct insect forms, we would see a progression from the Elateridae, which have highly and consistently luminous thoraxes, and from the Lampyridae, with very luminous abdomens, to some ancient insects that are occasionally luminous like the centipede.

I do not know, but suppose that the microscopical structure of the luminous organs in the most different insects is nearly the same; and I should attribute to inheritance from a common progenitor, the similarity of the tissues, which under similar conditions, allowed them to vary in the same manner, and thus, through Natural Selection for the same general purpose, to arrive at the same result. Mutatis mutandis, I should apply the same doctrine to the electric organs of fishes; but here I have to make, in my own mind, the violent assumption that some ancient fish was slightly electrical without having any special organs for the purpose. It has been stated on evidence, not trustworthy, that certain reptiles are electrical. It is, moreover, possible that the so-called electric organs, whilst in a condition not highly developed, may have subserved some distinct function: at least, I think, Matteucci could detect no pure electricity in certain fishes provided with the proper organs. In one of your letters you alluded to nails, claws, hoofs, etc. From their perfect coadaptation with the whole rest of the organisation, I cannot admit that they would have been formed by the direct action of the conditions of life. H. Spencer's view that they were first developed from indurated skin, the result of pressure on the extremities, seems to me probable.

I’m not sure, but let’s say that the microscopic structure of the light-producing organs in various insects is pretty much the same. I would attribute the similarity of the tissues to inheritance from a common ancestor, which under similar conditions allowed them to change in the same way, and thus, through Natural Selection for the same general purpose, to achieve the same result. Similarly, I would apply the same idea to the electric organs of fish; however, I need to make a bold assumption that some ancient fish had a slight electrical capability without any specialized organs for that purpose. It's been claimed—though the evidence isn’t reliable—that certain reptiles are electrical. Additionally, it’s possible that the so-called electric organs, while not fully developed, might have served a distinct function; at least, I believe Matteucci couldn’t find any pure electricity in certain fish that had the necessary organs. In one of your letters, you mentioned nails, claws, hooves, etc. Given their perfect integration with the rest of the organism, I can’t accept that they were formed solely by the direct influence of environmental conditions. H. Spencer’s idea that they first developed from hardened skin due to pressure at the extremities seems plausible to me.

In regard to thorns and spines I suppose that stunted and {illegible} hardened processes were primarily left by the abortion of various appendages, but I must believe that their extreme sharpness and hardness is the result of fluctuating variability and "the survival of the fittest." The precise form, curvature and colour of the thorns I freely admit to be the result of the laws of growth of each particular plant, or of their conditions, internal and external. It would be an astounding fact if any varying plant suddenly produced, without the aid of reversion or selection, perfect thorns. That Natural Selection would tend to produce the most formidable thorns will be admitted by every one who has observed the distribution in South America and Africa (vide Livingstone) of thorn-bearing plants, for they always appear where the bushes grow isolated and are exposed to the attacks of mammals. Even in England it has been noticed that all spine-bearing and sting-bearing plants are palatable to quadrupeds, when the thorns are crushed. With respect to the Malayan climbing Palm, what I meant to express is that the admirable hooks were perhaps not first developed for climbing; but having been developed for protection were subsequently used, and perhaps further modified for climbing.

When it comes to thorns and spines, I think that stunted and hardened growths were mostly left behind due to the loss of various parts, but I believe their extreme sharpness and hardness come from fluctuating variability and "the survival of the fittest." I admit that the specific shape, curve, and color of the thorns are determined by the growth patterns of each plant and their internal and external conditions. It would be surprising if any plant were to suddenly produce perfect thorns without the influence of reversion or selection. Most people would agree that Natural Selection tends to create the most formidable thorns, as seen in the distribution of thorny plants in South America and Africa (see Livingstone), where they often grow in isolation and face threats from mammals. Even in England, it has been observed that all plants with spines and stings are appealing to quadrupeds when the thorns are crushed. Regarding the Malayan climbing palm, what I intended to convey is that the impressive hooks may not have been initially developed for climbing; instead, they were likely developed for protection and then later adapted, possibly even modified, for climbing.

LETTER 224. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 8th {1868}.

About the "Pall Mall." (224/1. "Pall Mall Gazette," August 22nd, 1868. In an article headed "Dr. Hooker on Religion and Science," and referring to the British Association address, the writer objects to any supposed opposition between religion and science. "Religion," he says, "is your opinion upon one set of subjects, science your opinion upon another set of subjects." But he forgets that on one side we have opinions assumed to be revealed truths; and this is a condition which either results in the further opinion that those who bring forward irreconcilable facts are more or less wicked, or in a change of front on the religious side, by which theological opinion "shifts its ground to meet the requirements of every new fact that science establishes, and every old error that science exposes" (Dr. Hooker as quoted by the "Pall Mall"). If theologians had been in the habit of recognising that, in the words of the "Pall Mall" writer, "Science is a general name for human knowledge in its most definite and general shape, whatever may be the object of that knowledge," probably Sir Joseph Hooker's remarks would never have been made.) I do not agree that the article was at all right; it struck me as monstrous (and answered on the spot by the "Morning Advertiser") that religion did not attack science. When, however, I say not at all right, I am not sure whether it would not be wisest for scientific men quite to ignore the whole subject of religion. Goldwin Smith, who has been lunching here, coming with the Nortons (son of Professor Norton and friend of Asa Gray), who have taken for four months Keston Rectory, was strongly of opinion it was a mistake. Several persons have spoken strongly to me as very much admiring your address. For chance of you caring to see yourself in a French dress, I send a journal; also with a weak article by Agassiz on Geographical Distribution. Berkeley has sent me his address (224/2. The Rev. M.J. Berkeley was President of Section D at Norwich in 1868.), so I have had a fair excuse for writing to him. I differ from you: I could hardly bear to shake hands with the "Sugar of Lead" (224/3. "You know Mrs. Carlyle said that Owen's sweetness reminded her of sugar of lead." (Huxley to Tyndall, May 13th, 1887: Huxley's "Life," II., page 167.), which I never heard before: it is capital. I am so very glad you will come here with Asa Gray, as if I am bad he will not be dull. We shall ask the Nortons to come to dinner. On Saturday, Wallace (and probably Mrs. W.), J. Jenner Weir (a very good man), and Blyth, and I fear not Bates, are coming to stay the Sunday. The thought makes me rather nervous; but I shall enjoy it immensely if it does not kill me. How I wish it was possible for you to be here!

About the "Pall Mall." (224/1. "Pall Mall Gazette," August 22nd, 1868. In an article titled "Dr. Hooker on Religion and Science," and discussing the British Association address, the writer argues against any supposed conflict between religion and science. "Religion," he states, "is your perspective on one set of topics, while science is your perspective on another set." However, he overlooks that on one side we have beliefs claimed to be revealed truths; and this situation either leads to the further belief that those who present contradictory facts are somewhat immoral, or to a shift in position on the religious side, where theological belief "adjusts its stance to accommodate the demands of every new fact that science presents, and every old mistake that science reveals" (Dr. Hooker as quoted by the "Pall Mall"). If theologians had recognized that, as the "Pall Mall" writer says, "Science is a general term for human knowledge in its most precise and universal form, regardless of the subject matter," Sir Joseph Hooker's comments probably would never have been made.) I don't agree that the article was correct at all; it struck me as outrageous (and was immediately countered by the "Morning Advertiser") that religion did not challenge science. When I say it was not correct, I'm not sure if it wouldn’t be wiser for scientists to completely disregard the topic of religion. Goldwin Smith, who has been having lunch here with the Nortons (the son of Professor Norton and a friend of Asa Gray), who are staying at Keston Rectory for four months, strongly believed it was a mistake. Several people have told me they really admired your address. In case you might be interested in seeing yourself in a French context, I’m sending a journal, along with a weak article by Agassiz on Geographical Distribution. Berkeley has sent me his address (224/2. The Rev. M.J. Berkeley was President of Section D at Norwich in 1868.), so I had a good reason to write to him. I disagree with you: I could hardly stand to shake hands with the "Sugar of Lead" (224/3. "You know Mrs. Carlyle said that Owen's sweetness reminded her of sugar of lead." (Huxley to Tyndall, May 13th, 1887: Huxley's "Life," II., page 167.), which I hadn’t heard before: it's fantastic. I'm really glad you will come here with Asa Gray; if I'm feeling off, at least he won’t be boring. We will invite the Nortons for dinner. On Saturday, Wallace (and probably Mrs. Wallace), J. Jenner Weir (a really good guy), and Blyth are coming to spend Sunday. The thought makes me a bit anxious, but I'll enjoy it immensely if it doesn’t overwhelm me. I really wish you could be here!

LETTER 225. TO M.J. BERKELEY. Down, September 7th, 1868.

I am very much obliged to you for having sent me your address (225/1. Address to Section D of the British Association. ("Brit. Assoc. Report," Norwich meeting, 1868, page 83.))...for I thus gain a fair excuse for troubling you with this note to thank you for your most kind and extremely honourable notice of my works.

I really appreciate you sending me your address (225/1. Address to Section D of the British Association. ("Brit. Assoc. Report," Norwich meeting, 1868, page 83.))... because it gives me a good reason to reach out with this note to thank you for your kind and truly honorable mention of my work.

When I tell you that ever since I was an undergraduate at Cambridge I have felt towards you the most unfeigned respect, from all that I continually heard from poor dear Henslow and others of your great knowledge and original researches, you will believe me when I say that I have rarely in my life been more gratified than by reading your address; though I feel that you speak much too strongly of what I have done. Your notice of pangenesis (225/3. "It would be unpardonable to finish these somewhat desultory remarks without adverting to one of the most interesting subjects of the day,—the Darwinian doctrine of pangenesis...Like everything which comes from the pen of a writer whom I have no hesitation, so far as my judgment goes, in considering as by far the greatest observer of our age, whatever may be thought of his theories when carried out to their extreme results, the subject demands a careful and impartial consideration." (Berkeley, page 86.)) has particularly pleased me, for it has been generally neglected or disliked by my friends; yet I fully expect that it will some day be more successful. I believe I quite agree with you in the manner in which the cast-off atoms or so-called gemmules probably act (225/4. "Assuming the general truth of the theory that molecules endowed with certain attributes are cast off by the component cells of such infinitesimal minuteness as to be capable of circulating with the fluids, and in the end to be present in the unimpregnated embryo-cell and spermatozoid...it seems to me far more probable that they should be capable under favourable circumstances of exercising an influence analogous to that which is exercised by the contents of the pollen-tube or spermatozoid on the embryo-sac or ovum, than that these particles should be themselves developed into cells" (Berkeley, page 87).): I have never supposed that they were developed into free cells, but that they penetrated other nascent cells and modified their subsequent development. This process I have actually compared with ordinary fertilisation. The cells thus modified, I suppose cast off in their turn modified gemmules, which again combine with other nascent cells, and so on. But I must not trouble you any further.

When I say that since my time as an undergraduate at Cambridge I've felt a genuine respect for you, thanks to everything I continually heard from dear Henslow and others about your vast knowledge and innovative research, you can believe me when I say that I have rarely felt as gratified as I did reading your address; however, I think you speak too highly of my contributions. Your mention of pangenesis has particularly pleased me, as it's been mostly overlooked or dismissed by my friends; yet I fully expect that it will gain more recognition in the future. I believe I agree with you on how the discarded atoms or so-called gemmules likely function: I never assumed they developed into separate cells, but rather that they infiltrated other developing cells and influenced their further growth. I've compared this process to normal fertilization. The cells that are altered likely produce modified gemmules in turn, which combine with other developing cells, and so it goes. But I shouldn’t take up any more of your time.

LETTER 226. TO AUGUST WEISMANN. Down, October 22nd, 1868.

I am very much obliged for your kind letter, and I have waited for a week before answering it in hopes of receiving the "kleine Schrift" (226/1. The "kleine Schrift" is "Ueber die Berechtigung der Darwin'schen Theorie," Leipzig, 1868. The "Anhang" is "Ueber den Einfluss der Wanderung und raumlichen Isolirung auf die Artbilding.") to which you allude; but I fear it is lost, which I am much surprised at, as I have seldom failed to receive anything sent by the post.

I really appreciate your kind letter, and I waited a week to respond in hopes of getting the "kleine Schrift" (226/1. The "kleine Schrift" is "Ueber die Berechtigung der Darwin'schen Theorie," Leipzig, 1868. The "Anhang" is "Ueber den Einfluss der Wanderung und raumlichen Isolirung auf die Artbilding.") that you mentioned; however, I’m afraid it’s lost, which surprises me because I usually receive everything sent by mail.

As I do not know the title, and cannot order a copy, I should be very much obliged if you can spare another.

Since I don't know the title and can't order a copy, I would really appreciate it if you could send another one.

I am delighted that you, with whose name I am familiar, should approve of my work. I entirely agree with what you say about each species varying according to its own peculiar laws; but at the same time it must, I think, be admitted that the variations of most species have in the lapse of ages been extremely diversified, for I do not see how it can be otherwise explained that so many forms have acquired analogous structures for the same general object, independently of descent. I am very glad to hear that you have been arguing against Nageli's law of perfectibility, which seems to me superfluous. Others hold similar views, but none of them define what this "perfection" is which cannot be gradually attained through Natural Selection. I thought M. Wagner's first pamphlet (226/2. Wagner's first essay, "Die Darwin'sche Theorie und das Migrationsgesetz," 1868, is a separately published pamphlet of 62 pages. In the preface the author states that it is a fuller version of a paper read before the Royal Academy of Science at Munich in March 1868. We are not able to say which of Wagner's writings is referred to as the second pamphlet; his second well-known essay, "Ueber den Einfluss der Geogr. Isolirung," etc., is of later date, viz., 1870.) (for I have not yet had time to read the second) very good and interesting; but I think that he greatly overrates the necessity for emigration and isolation. I doubt whether he has reflected on what must occur when his forms colonise a new country, unless they vary during the very first generation; nor does he attach, I think, sufficient weight to the cases of what I have called unconscious selection by man: in these cases races are modified by the preservation of the best and the destruction of the worst, without any isolation.

I’m really happy that you, someone whose name I know, approve of my work. I completely agree with your point about each species changing according to its own specific rules; however, I think we should acknowledge that the variations in most species have been extremely diverse over the ages. I don't see how we can explain the fact that so many forms have developed similar structures for the same general purpose, independent of their ancestry. I’m also glad to hear that you’ve been arguing against Nageli's law of perfectibility, which seems unnecessary to me. Others share similar opinions, but none of them clarify what this "perfection" is that can’t be slowly achieved through Natural Selection. I found M. Wagner's first pamphlet (226/2. Wagner's first essay, "Die Darwin'sche Theorie und das Migrationsgesetz," 1868, is a separately published pamphlet of 62 pages. In the preface, the author states that it is a fuller version of a paper presented before the Royal Academy of Science in Munich in March 1868. We cannot determine which of Wagner's writings is referred to as the second pamphlet; his well-known second essay, "Ueber den Einfluss der Geogr. Isolirung," etc., is from a later date, 1870.) (since I haven’t had time to read the second one yet) to be very good and interesting; however, I think he greatly overstates the necessity for emigration and isolation. I question whether he has considered what happens when his forms settle in a new country, unless they start to change right from the first generation. I also believe he doesn't give enough importance to what I’ve termed unconscious selection by humans: in these cases, breeds are altered by keeping the best and getting rid of the worst, without any need for isolation.

I sympathise with you most sincerely on the state of your eyesight: it is indeed the most fearful evil which can happen to any one who, like yourself, is earnestly attached to the pursuit of natural knowledge.

I truly sympathize with you about your eyesight issues: it’s really the most terrifying thing that can happen to someone like you, who is so dedicated to the pursuit of natural knowledge.

LETTER 227. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 18th {1869}.

Since I wrote a few days ago and sent off three copies of your book, I have read the English translation (227/1. "Facts and Arguments for Darwin." See "Life and Letters," III., page 37.), and cannot deny myself the pleasure of once again expressing to you my warm admiration. I might, but will not, repeat my thanks for the very honourable manner in which you often mention my name; but I can truly say that I look at the publication of your essay as one of the greatest honours ever conferred on me. Nothing can be more profound and striking than your observations on development and classification. I am very glad that you have added your justification in regard to the metamorphoses of insects; for your conclusion now seems in the highest degree probable. (227/2. See "Facts and Arguments for Darwin," page 119 (note), where F. Muller gives his reasons for the belief that the "complete metamorphosis" of insects was not a character of the form from which insects have sprung: his argument largely depends on considerations drawn from the study of the neuroptera.) I have re-read many parts, especially that on cirripedes, with the liveliest interest. I had almost forgotten your discussion on the retrograde development of the Rhizocephala. What an admirable illustration it affords of my whole doctrine! A man must indeed be a bigot in favour of separate acts of creation if he is not staggered after reading your essay; but I fear that it is too deep for English readers, except for a select few.

Since I wrote a few days ago and sent off three copies of your book, I have read the English translation (227/1. "Facts and Arguments for Darwin." See "Life and Letters," III., page 37.), and I can't help but express my warm admiration once again. I might, but won’t, repeat my thanks for the respectful way you often mention my name; however, I can honestly say that I see the publication of your essay as one of the greatest honors I've ever received. Nothing is more profound and striking than your observations on development and classification. I'm really glad that you included your justification regarding the metamorphoses of insects because your conclusion now seems highly probable. (227/2. See "Facts and Arguments for Darwin," page 119 (note), where F. Muller gives his reasons for believing that the "complete metamorphosis" of insects was not a characteristic of the form from which insects evolved: his argument largely relies on insights from the study of the neuroptera.) I have re-read many parts, especially the section on cirripedes, with great interest. I had nearly forgotten your discussion on the backward development of the Rhizocephala. What an excellent illustration it provides for my entire doctrine! One must truly be a bigot in favor of separate acts of creation if they aren't taken aback after reading your essay; but I worry that it may be too complex for English readers, except for a select few.

LETTER 228. TO A.R. WALLACE. March 27th {1869}.

LETTER 228. TO A.R. WALLACE. March 27, 1869.

I have lately (i.e., in new edition of the "Origin") (228/1. Fifth edition, 1869, pages 150-57.) been moderating my zeal, and attributing much more to mere useless variability. I did think I would send you the sheet, but I daresay you would not care to see it, in which I discuss Nageli's Essay on Natural Selection not affecting characters of no functional importance, and which yet are of high classificatory importance. Hooker is pretty well satisfied with what I have said on this head.

I have recently (in the new edition of the "Origin") (228/1. Fifth edition, 1869, pages 150-57.) been moderating my enthusiasm and attributing much more to simple useless variability. I thought about sending you the sheet where I discuss Nageli's essay on how natural selection doesn't impact traits that have no functional importance, yet are very important for classification. Hooker is quite satisfied with what I've said on this topic.

LETTER 229. TO J.D. HOOKER. Caerdeon, Barmouth, North Wales, July 24th {1869}.

We shall be at home this day week, taking two days on the journey, and right glad I shall be. The whole has been a failure to me, but much enjoyment to the young...My wife has ailed a good deal nearly all the time; so that I loathe the place, with all its beauty. I was glad to hear what you thought of F. Muller, and I agree wholly with you. Your letter came at the nick of time, for I was writing on the very day to Muller, and I passed on your approbation of Chaps. X. and XI. Some time I should like to borrow the "Transactions of the New Zealand Institute," so as to read Colenso's article. (229/1. Colenso, "On the Maori Races of New Zealand." "N.Z. Inst. Trans." 1868, Pt. 3.) You must read Huxley v. Comte (229/2. "The Scientific Aspects of Positivism." "Fortnightly Review," 1869, page 652, and "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 162. This was a reply to Mr. Congreve's article, "Mr. Huxley on M. Comte," published in the April number of the "Fortnightly," page 407, which had been written in criticism of Huxley's article in the February number of the "Fortnightly," page 128, "On the Physical Basis of Life."); he never wrote anything so clever before, and has smashed everybody right and left in grand style. I had a vague wish to read Comte, and so had George, but he has entirely cured us of any such vain wish.

We'll be home this day next week, spending two days on the trip, and I’ll be really glad about it. This whole experience has been a failure for me, but the young ones have enjoyed it a lot... My wife has been unwell nearly the whole time, so I can't stand the place, no matter how beautiful it is. I was happy to hear your thoughts on F. Muller, and I completely agree with you. Your letter arrived just in time because I was writing to Muller that very day, and I mentioned your approval of Chapters X and XI. At some point, I’d like to borrow the "Transactions of the New Zealand Institute" to read Colenso's article. (229/1. Colenso, "On the Maori Races of New Zealand." "N.Z. Inst. Trans." 1868, Pt. 3.) You really should read Huxley v. Comte (229/2. "The Scientific Aspects of Positivism." "Fortnightly Review," 1869, page 652, and "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 162. This was a response to Mr. Congreve's article, "Mr. Huxley on M. Comte," published in the April issue of the "Fortnightly," page 407, which criticized Huxley's piece in the February "Fortnightly," page 128, "On the Physical Basis of Life."); he has never written anything so brilliant before, and he’s taken everyone down in grand style. I had a vague desire to read Comte, and so did George, but he has completely cured us of any such foolish wish.

There is another article (229/3. "North British Review," Volume 50, 1869: "Geological Time," page 406. The papers reviewed are Sir William Thomson, "Trans. R. Soc. Edin." 1862; "Phil. Mag." 1863; Thomson and Tait, "Natural Philosophy," Volume I., App. D; Sir W. Thomson, "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." 1865; "Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow," 1868 and 1869; "Macmillan's Mag." 1862; Prof. Huxley, Presidential Address, "Geol. Soc. London," February, 1869; Dr. Hooker, Presidential Address, "Brit. Assoc." Norwich, 1868. Also the review on the "Origin" in the "North British Review," 1867, by Fleeming Jenkin, and an article in the "Pall Mall Gazette," May 3rd, 1869. The author treats the last-named with contempt as the work of an anonymous journalist, apparently unconscious of his own similar position.) just come out in last "North British," by some great mathematician, which is admirably done; he has a severe fling at you (229/4. The author of the "North British" article appears to us, at page 408, to misunderstand or misinterpret Sir J.D. Hooker's parable on "underpinning." See "Life and Letters," III., page 101 (note). Sir Joseph is attacked with quite unnecessary vehemence on another point at page 413.), but the article is directed against Huxley and for Thomson. This review shows me—not that I required being shown—how devilish a clever fellow Huxley is, for the reviewer cannot help admiring his abilities. There are some good specimens of mathematical arrogance in the review, and incidentally he shows how often astronomers have arrived at conclusions which are now seen to be mistaken; so that geologists might truly answer that we must be slow in admitting your conclusions. Nevertheless, all uniformitarians had better at once cry "peccavi,"—not but what I feel a conviction that the world will be found rather older than Thomson makes it, and far older than the reviewer makes it. I am glad I have faced and admitted the difficulty in the last edition of the "Origin," of which I suppose you received, according to order, a copy.

There’s another article (229/3. "North British Review," Volume 50, 1869: "Geological Time," page 406. The papers discussed include Sir William Thomson, "Trans. R. Soc. Edin." 1862; "Phil. Mag." 1863; Thomson and Tait, "Natural Philosophy," Volume I., App. D; Sir W. Thomson, "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." 1865; "Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow," 1868 and 1869; "Macmillan's Mag." 1862; Prof. Huxley, Presidential Address, "Geol. Soc. London," February, 1869; Dr. Hooker, Presidential Address, "Brit. Assoc." Norwich, 1868. Also, there's the review on the "Origin" in the "North British Review," 1867, by Fleeming Jenkin, and an article in the "Pall Mall Gazette," May 3rd, 1869. The author treats the latter with disdain as the work of an unknown journalist, seemingly unaware of his own similar situation.) that just came out in the last "North British," by some great mathematician, which is wonderfully done; he takes a harsh shot at you (229/4. The author of the "North British" article seems to misunderstand or misinterpret Sir J.D. Hooker's parable on "underpinning." See "Life and Letters," III., page 101 (note). Sir Joseph is criticized with quite unnecessary intensity on another point at page 413.), but the article is aimed at Huxley and supports Thomson. This review shows me—not that I needed showing—just how incredibly clever Huxley is, as the reviewer can’t help but admire his talents. There are some notable examples of mathematical arrogance in the review, and he also points out how often astronomers have reached conclusions that we now know were wrong, so geologists might reasonably reply that we should be cautious in accepting your conclusions. Still, all uniformitarians might as well admit they were wrong,—though I believe that the world will likely turn out to be older than Thomson suggests, and much older than the reviewer implies. I’m glad I acknowledged and faced the difficulty in the last edition of the "Origin," of which I assume you received a copy as requested.

LETTER 230. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 7th {1869}.

There never was such a good man as you for telling me things which I like to hear. I am not at all surprised that Hallett has found some varieties of wheat could not be improved in certain desirable qualities as quickly as at first. All experience shows this with animals; but it would, I think, be rash to assume, judging from actual experience, that a little more improvement could not be got in the course of a century, and theoretically very improbable that after a few thousands {of years} rest there would not be a start in the same line of variation. What astonishes me as against experience, and what I cannot believe, is that varieties already improved or modified do not vary in other respects. I think he must have generalised from two or three spontaneously fixed varieties. Even in seedlings from the same capsule some vary much more than others; so it is with sub-varieties and varieties. (230/1. In a letter of August 13th, 1869, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote correcting Mr. Darwin's impression: "I did not mean to imply that Hallett affirmed that all variation stopped—far from it: he maintained the contrary, but if I understand him aright, he soon arrives at a point beyond which any further accumulation in the direction sought is so small and so slow that practically a fixity of type (not absolute fixity, however) is the result.")

There has never been a better person than you at telling me things I like to hear. I'm not at all surprised that Hallett has found some types of wheat can't be improved in certain desirable traits as quickly as initially thought. Experience shows this is true with animals as well; however, I believe it would be unwise to assume, based on current experience, that a bit more improvement couldn't happen over a century, and it seems theoretically unlikely that after a few thousand years of rest, there wouldn't be some progress in the same direction of variation. What surprises me, going against experience, and what I can't believe, is that varieties that are already improved or modified don't vary in other ways. I think he must have made a generalization based on two or three stable varieties. Even seedlings from the same capsule can vary significantly; the same goes for sub-varieties and varieties. (230/1. In a letter dated August 13th, 1869, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote to correct Mr. Darwin's impression: "I did not mean to imply that Hallett affirmed that all variation stopped—far from it: he maintained the contrary, but if I understand him correctly, he soon reaches a point where any further accumulation in the desired direction is so small and so slow that practically a stability of type (though not absolute stability) results.")

It is a grand fact about Anoplotherium (230/2. This perhaps refers to the existence of Anoplotherium in the S. American Eocene formation: it is one of the points in which the fauna of S. America resembles Europe rather than N. America. (See Wallace "Geographical Distribution," I., page 148.)), and shows how even terrestrial quadrupeds had time formerly to spread to very distinct regions. At each epoch the world tends to get peopled pretty uniformly, which is a blessing for Geology.

It’s a significant fact about Anoplotherium (230/2. This likely points to the presence of Anoplotherium in the South American Eocene formation: it is one of the instances where the fauna of South America is more similar to that of Europe than North America. (See Wallace "Geographical Distribution," I., page 148.)), and it illustrates how even land mammals had the opportunity to spread to very different areas in the past. With each era, the world tends to become populated fairly evenly, which is a benefit for Geology.

The article in "N. British Review" (230/3. See Letter 229.) is well worth reading scientifically; George D. and Erasmus were delighted with it. How the author does hit! It was a euphuism to speak of a fling at you: it was a kick. He is very unfair to Huxley, and accuses him of "quibbling," etc.; yet the author cannot help admiring him extremely. I know I felt very small when I finished the article. You will be amused to observe that geologists have all been misled by Playfair, who was misled by two of the greatest mathematicians! And there are other such cases; so we could turn round and show your reviewer how cautious geologists ought to be in trusting mathematicians.

The article in "N. British Review" (230/3. See Letter 229.) is definitely worth reading scientifically; George D. and Erasmus really liked it. The author really hits the mark! It was an understatement to say it was just a dig at you; it was a full-blown attack. He’s pretty unfair to Huxley and calls him "quibbling," etc.; still, the author can’t help but admire him a lot. I know I felt pretty insignificant when I finished the article. You’ll find it amusing that geologists have all been misled by Playfair, who was misled by two of the greatest mathematicians! And there are other examples like that; so we could definitely point out to your reviewer how careful geologists need to be when it comes to trusting mathematicians.

There is another excellent original article, I feel sure by McClennan, on Primeval Man, well worth reading.

There’s another great original article, I’m pretty sure by McClennan, about Primeval Man that’s definitely worth reading.

I do not quite agree about Sabine: he is unlike every other soldier or sailor I ever heard of if he would not put his second leg into the tomb with more satisfaction as K.C.B. than as a simple man. I quite agree that the Government ought to have made him long ago, but what does the Government know or care for Science? So much for your splenditious letter.

I don’t really agree about Sabine: he’s unlike any other soldier or sailor I’ve heard of if he wouldn’t feel prouder putting his second leg into the grave with the K.C.B. than just as an ordinary person. I totally agree that the Government should have honored him a long time ago, but what does the Government know or care about Science? That’s all for your fancy letter.

LETTER 231. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 14th {1869?}

LETTER 231. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 14, {1869?}

I write one line to tell you that you are a real good man to propose coming here for a Sunday after Exeter. Do keep to this good intention...I am sure Exeter and your other visit will do you good. I often wonder how you stand all your multifarious work.

I’m writing to say that you’re a really great guy for suggesting to come here for a Sunday after Exeter. Please stick to this plan...I’m sure Exeter and your other visit will be beneficial for you. I often wonder how you handle all your various tasks.

I quite agree about the folly of the endless subscriptions for dead men; but Faraday is an exception, and if you will pay three guineas for me, it will save me some trouble; but it will be best to enclose a cheque, which, as you will see, must be endorsed. If you read the "North British Review," you will like to know that George has convinced me, from correspondence in style, and spirit, that the article is by Tait, the co-worker with Thomson.

I totally agree that it’s pointless to keep subscribing for the deceased; however, Faraday is an exception. If you could pay three guineas on my behalf, it would really help me out. It’d be best to include a check, which, as you’ll see, needs to be endorsed. If you’re reading the "North British Review," you might be interested to know that George has persuaded me, through the style and tone of the correspondence, that the article was written by Tait, who worked with Thomson.

I was much surprised at the leaves of Drosophyllum being always rolled backwards at their tips, but did not know that it was a unique character.

I was quite surprised that the leaves of Drosophyllum were always rolled back at their tips, but I didn't realize it was a unique feature.

(PLATE: SIR J.D. HOOKER, 1870? From a photograph by Wallich.)

(PLATE: SIR J.D. HOOKER, 1870? From a photo by Wallich.)

LETTER 232. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 13th {1869}.

I heard yesterday from a relation who had seen in a newspaper that you were C.B. I must write one line to say "Hurrah," though I wish it had been K.C.B., as it assuredly ought to have been; but I suppose they look at K.C.B. before C.B. as a dukedom before an earldom.

I heard yesterday from a relative who saw in a newspaper that you were C.B. I have to write a quick note to say "Hurrah," even though I wish it had been K.C.B., as it definitely should have been; but I guess they consider K.C.B. before C.B. the way they view a dukedom before an earldom.

We had a very successful week in London, and I was unusually well and saw a good many persons, which, when well, is a great pleasure to me. I had a jolly talk with Huxley, amongst others. And now I am at the same work as before, and shall be for another two months—namely, putting ugly sentences rather straighter; and I am sick of the work, and, as the subject is all on sexual selection, I am weary of everlasting males and females, cocks and hens.

We had a really successful week in London, and I was feeling unusually good and met a lot of people, which is a great pleasure for me when I'm well. I had a great conversation with Huxley, among others. Now I'm back to the same work as before, and I'll be at it for another two months—specifically, trying to straighten out awkward sentences; I'm getting tired of it. Since the topic is all about sexual selection, I'm exhausted from the endless focus on males and females, roosters and hens.

It is a shame to bother you, but I should like some time to hear about the C.B. affair.

It’s unfortunate to trouble you, but I would like some time to discuss the C.B. situation.

I have read one or two interesting brochures lately—viz., Stirling the Hegelian versus Huxley and protoplasm; Tylor in "Journal of Royal Institute" on the survivals of old thought in modern civilisation.

I’ve read a couple of interesting brochures recently—namely, Stirling the Hegelian versus Huxley and protoplasm; Tylor in the "Journal of Royal Institute" on the remnants of old thought in modern civilization.

Farewell. I am as dull as a duck, both male and female.

Farewell. I'm as boring as a duck, whether it's a boy or a girl.

To Dr. Hooker, C.B., F.R.S.

Dr. Hooker, K.C.B. (This looks better).

P.S. I hear a good account of Bentham's last address (232/1. Presidential Address, chiefly on Geographical Distribution, delivered before the "Linn. Soc." May 24th, 1869.), which I am now going to read.

P.S. I’ve heard a great review of Bentham's final speech (232/1. Presidential Address, mainly on Geographical Distribution, delivered before the "Linn. Soc." on May 24th, 1869.), which I’m about to read now.

I find that I have blundered about Bentham's address. Lyell was speaking about one that I read some months ago; but I read half of it again last night, and shall finish it. Some passages are either new or were not studied enough by me before. It strikes me as admirable, as it did on the first reading, though I differ in some few points.

I realize that I misunderstood Bentham's address. Lyell was talking about one that I read a few months back; however, I started re-reading part of it last night and will finish it. Some sections are either new or I didn’t pay enough attention to them before. I find it impressive, just as I did the first time, although I do have a few differing opinions.

Such an address is worth its weight in gold, I should think, in making converts to our views. Lyell tells me that Bunbury has been wonderfully impressed with it, and he never before thought anything of our views on evolution.

Such a speech is incredibly valuable, I believe, in gaining support for our ideas. Lyell told me that Bunbury has been really impressed by it, and he never thought much of our views on evolution before.

P.S. (2). I have just read, and like very much, your review of Schimper. (232/2. A review of Schimper's "Traite de Paleontologie Vegetale," the first portion of which was published in 1869. "Nature," November 11th, 1869, page 48.)

P.S. (2). I just read your review of Schimper, and I really liked it. (232/2. A review of Schimper's "Traite de Paleontologie Vegetale," the first part of which was published in 1869. "Nature," November 11th, 1869, page 48.)

LETTER 233. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 19th {1869}.

Thank you much for telling me all about the C.B., for I much wished to hear. It pleases me extremely that the Government have done this much; and as the K.C.B.'s are limited in number (which I did not know), I excuse it. I will not mention what you have told me to any one, as it would be Murchisonian. But what a shame it is to use this expression, for I fully believe that Murchison would take any trouble to get any token of honour for any man of science.

Thank you so much for filling me in on the C.B.; I really wanted to hear about it. I'm very pleased that the Government has done this much, and since the K.C.B.s are limited in number (something I didn't know), I understand why. I won't share what you told me with anyone, as it would be Murchisonian. But it's a shame to use that term, because I truly believe that Murchison would go to great lengths to get any recognition for any scientist.

I like all scientific periodicals, including poor "Scientific Opinion," and I think higher than you do of "Nature." Lord, what a rhapsody that was of Goethe, but how well translated; it seemed to me, as I told Huxley, as if written by the maddest English scholar. It is poetry, and can I say anything more severe? The last number of the "Academy" was splendid, and I hope it will soon come out fortnightly. I wish "Nature" would search more carefully all foreign journals and transactions.

I enjoy all scientific magazines, including the not-so-great "Scientific Opinion," and I hold "Nature" in higher regard than you do. Wow, what a beautiful piece by Goethe, and such a well-done translation; it struck me, as I mentioned to Huxley, as if it were written by the craziest English scholar. It’s poetry, and can I say anything more critical? The latest issue of the "Academy" was fantastic, and I hope it will start coming out every two weeks. I wish "Nature" would take more time to thoroughly review foreign journals and transactions.

I am now reading a German thick pamphlet (233/1. "Die Abhangigheit der Pflanzengestalt von Klima und Boden. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der Enstehung und Verbreitung der Arten, etc." Festschrift zur 43 Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Aertze in Innsbruck (Innsbruck, 1869).) by Kerner on Tubocytisus; if you come across it, look at the map of the distribution of the eighteen quasi-species, and at the genealogical tree. If the latter, as the author says, was constructed solely from the affinities of the forms, then the distribution is wonderfully interesting; we may see the very steps of the formation of a species. If you study the genealogical tree and map, you will almost understand the book. The two old parent connecting links just keep alive in two or three areas; then we have four widely extended species, their descendants; and from them little groups of newer descendants inhabiting rather small areas...

I’m currently reading a German pamphlet (233/1. "Die Abhängigkeit der Pflanzengestalt von Klima und Boden. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der Entstehung und Verbreitung der Arten, etc." Festschrift zur 43. Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte in Innsbruck (Innsbruck, 1869).) by Kerner on Tubocytisus; if you happen to find it, check out the map showing the distribution of the eighteen quasi-species and the family tree. If the family tree, as the author claims, was built solely based on the similarities of the forms, then the distribution is incredibly fascinating; we can actually see the steps of how a species forms. If you analyze the family tree and map, you’ll almost grasp the book's concepts. The two old parent links are still alive in two or three regions; then we have four widely spread species, which are their descendants; from those, there are small groups of newer descendants living in rather limited areas...

LETTER 234. TO CAMILLE DARESTE. Down, November 20th, 1869.

Dear Sir,

I am glad that you are a candidate for the Chair of Physiology in Paris. As you are aware from my published works, I have always considered your investigations on the production of monstrosities as full of interest. No subject is at the present time more important, as far as my judgment goes, than the ascertaining by experiment how far structure can be modified by the direct action of changed conditions; and you have thrown much light on this subject.

I’m happy that you’re a candidate for the Chair of Physiology in Paris. As you know from my published work, I’ve always found your research on the production of abnormalities very intriguing. Right now, I believe there’s no topic more important than figuring out through experiments how much structure can change due to altered conditions, and you’ve shed a lot of light on this matter.

I observe that several naturalists in various parts of Europe have lately maintained that it is now of the highest interest for science to endeavour to lessen, as far as possible, our profound ignorance on the cause of each individual variation; and, as Is. Geoffroy St. Hilaire long ago remarked, monstrosities cannot be separated by any distinct line from slighter variations.

I notice that several naturalists across Europe have recently argued that it’s extremely important for science to try to reduce our deep ignorance about the cause of each individual variation. And as Is. Geoffroy St. Hilaire pointed out long ago, abnormalities can't be clearly distinguished from minor variations.

With my best wishes for your success in obtaining the Professorship, and with sincere respect.

With my best wishes for your success in getting the Professorship, and with genuine respect.

I have the honour to remain, dear sir, Yours faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.

I am honored to stay in touch, dear sir. Sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHAPTER 1.V.—EVOLUTION, 1870-1882.

LETTER 235. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, March 17th {1870}.

It is my decided opinion that you ought to send an account to some scientific society, and I think to the Royal Society. (235/1. Mr. Jenner Weir's case is given in "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 435, and does not appear to have been published elsewhere. The facts are briefly that a horse, the offspring of a mare of Lord Mostyn's, which had previously borne a foal by a quagga, showed a number of quagga-like characters, such as stripes, low-growing mane, and elongated hoofs. The passage in "Animals and Plants," to which he directs Mr. Weir's attention in reference to Carpenter's objection, is in Edition I., Volume I., page 405: "It is a most improbable hypothesis that the mere blood of one individual should affect the reproductive organs of another individual in such a manner as to modify the subsequent offspring. The analogy from the direct action of foreign pollen on the ovarium and seed-coats of the mother plant strongly supports the belief that the male element acts directly on the reproductive organs of the female, wonderful as is this action, and not through the intervention of the crossed embryo." For references to Mr. Galton's experiments on transfusion of blood, see Letter 273.) I would communicate it if you so decide. You might give as a preliminary reason the publication in the "Transactions" of the celebrated Morton case and the pig case by Mr. Giles. You might also allude to the evident physiological importance of such facts as bearing on the theory of generation. Whether it would be prudent to allude to despised pangenesis I cannot say, but I fully believe pangenesis will have its successful day. Pray ascertain carefully the colour of the dam and sire. See about duns in my book {"Animals and Plants"}, Volume I., page 55. The extension of the mane and form of hoofs are grand new facts. Is the hair of your horse at all curly? for {an} observed case {is} given by me (Volume II., page 325) from Azara of correlation of forms of hoof with curly hairs. See also in my book (Volume I., page 55; Volume II., page 41) how exceedingly rare stripes are on the faces of horses in England. Give the age of your horse.

I strongly believe that you should submit a report to a scientific society, specifically the Royal Society. (235/1. Mr. Jenner Weir's case is detailed in "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 435, and it seems it hasn't been published anywhere else. The summary is that a horse, born to a mare owned by Lord Mostyn, which previously had a foal with a quagga, displayed several quagga-like traits, including stripes, a short mane, and long hoofs. The section in "Animals and Plants" that he refers Mr. Weir to concerning Carpenter's objection is in Edition I., Volume I., page 405: "It is highly unlikely that the blood of one individual could influence the reproductive organs of another individual in such a way as to alter the next generation. The evidence from the direct effect of foreign pollen on the ovaries and seed coats of the mother plant strongly supports the idea that the male element directly affects the female's reproductive organs, remarkable as this process is, rather than through the intervention of the hybrid embryo." For information on Mr. Galton's experiments with blood transfusion, see Letter 273.) I would be happy to share it if you decide to do so. You might want to mention the publication in the "Transactions" regarding the well-known Morton case and Mr. Giles's pig case as preliminary reasons. You could also refer to the clear physiological significance of these facts in relation to the theory of generation. Whether it's wise to mention the often-ridiculed pangenesis, I can't say, but I genuinely believe it will eventually gain recognition. Please check the colors of both the dam and sire thoroughly. Look into duns in my book {"Animals and Plants,"} Volume I., page 55. The length of the mane and shape of the hoofs are significant new findings. Is your horse's hair at all curly? An observed case I noted (Volume II., page 325) from Azara discusses the correlation between hoof shapes and curly hairs. Also, in my book (Volume I., page 55; Volume II., page 41), you'll see how exceedingly rare stripes are on horses' faces in England. Please provide your horse's age.

You are aware that Dr. Carpenter and others have tried to account for the effects of a first impregnation from the influence of the blood of the crossed embryo; but with physiologists who believe that the reproductive elements are actually formed by the reproductive glands, this view is inconsistent. Pray look at what I have said in "Domestic Animals" (Volume I., pages 402-5) against this doctrine. It seems to me more probable that the gemmules affect the ovaria alone. I remember formerly speculating, like you, on the assertion that wives grow like their husbands; but how impossible to eliminate effects of imitation and same habits of life, etc. Your letter has interested me profoundly.

You know that Dr. Carpenter and others have tried to explain the effects of a first pregnancy based on the influence of the blood of the cross-born embryo, but this idea doesn't make sense to physiologists who think that reproductive cells are actually produced by the reproductive glands. Please check what I wrote in "Domestic Animals" (Volume I., pages 402-5) against this theory. I believe it's more likely that the gemmules only affect the ovaries. I remember once speculating, like you, on the claim that wives tend to resemble their husbands; but it's nearly impossible to separate the effects of imitation and shared lifestyles, etc. Your letter has deeply interested me.

P.S.—Since publishing I have heard of additional cases—a very good one in regard to Westphalian pigs crossed by English boar, and all subsequent offspring affected, given in "Illust. Landwirth-Zeitung," 1868, page 143.

P.S.—Since publishing, I have learned of more cases—a particularly notable one about Westphalian pigs crossed with English boars, and all the following offspring being affected, reported in "Illust. Landwirth-Zeitung," 1868, page 143.

I have shown that mules are often striped, though neither parent may be striped,—due to ancient reversion. Now, Fritz Muller writes to me from S. Brazil: "I have been assured, by persons who certainly never had heard of Lord Morton's mare, that mares which have borne hybrids to an ass are particularly liable to produce afterwards striped ass-colts." So a previous fertilisation apparently gives to the subsequent offspring a tendency to certain characters, as well as characters actually possessed by the first male.

I have shown that mules are often striped, even if neither parent is striped, due to ancient reversion. Now, Fritz Muller writes to me from S. Brazil: "I have been told by people who surely never heard of Lord Morton's mare that mares which have given birth to hybrids with a donkey are especially likely to produce striped donkey colts afterwards." So, previous fertilization seems to give the next offspring a tendency towards certain traits, as well as traits actually held by the first male.

In the reprint (not called a second edition) of my "Domestic Animals" I give a good additional case of subsequent progeny of hairless dog being hairy from effects of first impregnation.

In the reprint (not labeled a second edition) of my "Domestic Animals," I provide a compelling additional example of a hairless dog's offspring being hairy as a result of the first mating.

P.S. 2nd. The suggestion, no doubt, is superfluous, but you ought, I think, to measure extension of mane beyond a line joining front or back of ears, and compare with horse. Also the measure (and give comparison with horse), length, breadth, and depth of hoofs.

P.S. 2nd. The suggestion may seem unnecessary, but I think you should measure the length of the mane beyond a line connecting the front or back of the ears and compare it with a horse's. Also, measure (and compare with a horse) the length, width, and depth of the hooves.

LETTER 236. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 12th {1870}.

Your conclusion that all speculation about preordination is idle waste of time is the only wise one; but how difficult it is not to speculate! My theology is a simple muddle; I cannot look at the universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design or indeed of design of any kind, in the details. As for each variation that has ever occurred having been preordained for a special end, I can no more believe in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls has been specially ordained.

Your conclusion that all speculation about predestination is just a waste of time is the only smart one; but it's so hard not to speculate! My theology is a complete mess; I can't see the universe as the product of random chance, yet I can't find any evidence of a kind and loving design or really any design at all in the details. As for each variation that has ever happened being preordained for a specific purpose, I can’t believe in that any more than I can believe that the exact spot where each drop of rain falls has been specially determined.

Spontaneous generation seems almost as great a puzzle as preordination. I cannot persuade myself that such a multiplicity of organisms can have been produced, like crystals, in Bastian's (236/1. On September 2nd, 1872, Mr. Darwin wrote to Mr. Wallace, in reference to the latter's review of "The Beginnings of Life," by H.C. Bastian (1872), in "Nature," 1872, pages 284-99: "At present I should prefer any mad hypothesis, such as that every disintegrated molecule of the lowest forms can reproduce the parent-form; and that these molecules are universally distributed, and that they do not lose their vital power until heated to such a temperature that they decompose like dead organic particles.") solutions of the same kind. I am astonished that, as yet, I have met with no allusion to Wyman's positive statement (236/2. "Observations and Experiments on Living Organisms in Heated Water," by Jeffries Wyman, Prof. of Anatomy, Harvard Coll. ("Amer. Journ. Sci." XLIV., 1867, page 152.) Solutions of organic matter in hermetically sealed flasks were immersed in boiling water for various periods. "No infusoria of any kind appeared if the boiling was prolonged beyond a period of five hours.") that if the solutions are boiled for five hours no organisms appear; yet, if my memory serves me, the solutions when opened to air immediately became stocked. Against all evidence, I cannot avoid suspecting that organic particles (my "gemmules" from the separate cells of the lower creatures!) will keep alive and afterwards multiply under proper conditions.

Spontaneous generation seems almost as puzzling as preordination. I can’t convince myself that such a huge number of organisms can have been created, like crystals, in Bastian's experiments. On September 2nd, 1872, Mr. Darwin wrote to Mr. Wallace about the latter's review of "The Beginnings of Life" by H.C. Bastian (1872) in "Nature," 1872, pages 284-99: "Right now, I’d rather believe any crazy theory, like the idea that every disintegrated molecule of the simplest forms can recreate the parent form; that these molecules are spread everywhere, and they don’t lose their life force until they’re heated to a temperature where they decompose like dead organic matter." I’m amazed that I haven’t come across any mention of Wyman's clear statement: "Observations and Experiments on Living Organisms in Heated Water," by Jeffries Wyman, Professor of Anatomy, Harvard College ("Amer. Journ. Sci." XLIV., 1867, page 152). Solutions of organic matter in airtight sealed flasks were immersed in boiling water for different lengths of time. "No organisms of any kind appeared if boiling was continued for more than five hours." However, if I remember correctly, once the solutions were exposed to air, they quickly became populated. Despite all evidence, I can’t help but suspect that organic particles (my "gemmules" from the separate cells of lower creatures!) can stay alive and then multiply under the right conditions.

What an interesting problem it is.

What an interesting problem this is.

LETTER 237. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER. Down, July 15th {1870}.

It is very long since I have heard from you, and I am much obliged for your letter. It is good news that you are going to bring out a new edition of your Poultry book (237/1. "The Poultry Book," 1872.), and you are quite at liberty to use all my materials. Thanks for the curious case of the wild duck variation: I have heard of other instances of a tendency to vary in one out of a large litter or family. I have too many things in hand at present to profit by your offer of the loan of the American Poultry book.

It’s been a while since I heard from you, and I really appreciate your letter. It's great news that you're launching a new edition of your Poultry book (237/1. "The Poultry Book," 1872.), and you’re completely free to use all my materials. Thanks for sharing the interesting case of the wild duck variation; I've come across other examples of variation in one from a large brood or family. I have too much going on right now to take advantage of your offer to borrow the American Poultry book.

Pray keep firm to your idea of working out the subject of analogous variations (237/2. "By this term I mean that similar characters occasionally make their appearance in the several varieties or races descended from the same species, and more rarely in the offspring of widely distinct species" ("Animals and Plants," II., Edition II., page 340).) with pigeons; I really think you might thus make a novel and valuable contribution to science. I can, however, quite understand how much your time must be occupied with the never-ending, always-beginning editorial cares.

Please stick to your plan of exploring the topic of analogous variations (237/2. "By this term I mean that similar traits sometimes appear in the different varieties or races that come from the same species, and more rarely in the offspring of very different species" ("Animals and Plants," II., Edition II., page 340).) using pigeons; I genuinely believe you could make a unique and valuable contribution to science this way. However, I completely understand how much your time must be taken up with the constant, never-ending editorial responsibilities.

I keep much as usual, and crawl on with my work.

I keep things pretty much the same and continue with my work.

LETTER 238. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 27th {1870}.

Yours was a splendid letter, and I was very curious to hear something about the Liverpool meeting (238/1. Mr. Huxley was President of the British Association at Liverpool in 1870. His Presidential Address on "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" is reprinted in his collected Essays, VIII., page 229. Some account of the meeting is given in Huxley's "Life and Letters," Volume I., pages 332, 336.), which I much wished to be successful for Huxley's sake. I am surprised that you think his address would not have been clear to the public; it seemed to me as clear as water. The general line of his argument might have been answered by the case of spontaneous combustion: tens of thousands of cases of things having been seen to be set on fire would be no true argument against any one who maintained that flames sometimes spontaneously burst forth. I am delighted at the apotheosis of Sir Roderick; I can fancy what neat and appropriate speeches he would make to each nobleman as he entered the gates of heaven. You ask what I think about Tyndall's lecture (238/2. Tyndall's lecture was "On the Scientific Uses of the Imagination."): it seemed to me grand and very interesting, though I could not from ignorance quite follow some parts, and I longed to tell him how immensely it would have been improved if all the first part had been made very much less egotistical. George independently arrived at the same conclusion, and liked all the latter part extremely. He thought the first part not only egotistical, but rather clap-trap.

Your letter was fantastic, and I was eager to hear about the Liverpool meeting (238/1. Mr. Huxley was President of the British Association at Liverpool in 1870. His Presidential Address on "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" is reprinted in his collected Essays, VIII., page 229. Some account of the meeting is given in Huxley's "Life and Letters," Volume I., pages 332, 336.), which I hoped would be a success for Huxley's sake. I'm surprised you think his address wouldn't have been clear to the public; it seemed perfectly clear to me. The main point of his argument could be countered by the case of spontaneous combustion: countless instances of things being seen ignited wouldn't really disprove anyone claiming that flames sometimes erupt spontaneously. I'm thrilled about the elevation of Sir Roderick; I can just picture the clever and fitting speeches he would deliver to each noble as they enter the gates of heaven. You asked what I thought of Tyndall's lecture (238/2. Tyndall's lecture was "On the Scientific Uses of the Imagination."): I found it grand and very engaging, although I struggled with some parts due to my lack of knowledge, and I wished I could tell him how much better it would have been if the entire first part had been much less self-centered. George independently came to the same conclusion and really liked the latter part. He thought the first part was not only self-centered but also a bit gimmicky.

How well Tyndall puts the "as if" manner of philosophising, and shows that it is justifiable. Some of those confounded Frenchmen have lately been pitching into me for using this form of proof or argument.

How well Tyndall expresses the "as if" approach to philosophy and demonstrates that it's valid. Some of those annoying French critics have recently been attacking me for using this type of proof or argument.

I have just read Rolleston's address in "Nature" (238/3. Presidential Address to the Biological Section, British Association, 1870. "Nature," September 22nd, 1870, page 423. Rolleston referred to the vitality of seeds in soil, a subject on which Darwin made occasional observations. See "Life and Letters," II., page 65.): his style is quite unparalleled! I see he quotes you about seed, so yesterday I went and observed more carefully the case given in the enclosed paper, which perhaps you might like to read and burn.

I just read Rolleston's address in "Nature" (238/3. Presidential Address to the Biological Section, British Association, 1870. "Nature," September 22nd, 1870, page 423. Rolleston talked about the vitality of seeds in the soil, a topic that Darwin occasionally noted. See "Life and Letters," II., page 65.): his writing style is truly one of a kind! I noticed he quotes you regarding seeds, so yesterday I took a closer look at the case presented in the enclosed paper, which you might want to read and then discard.

How true and good what you say about Lyell. He is always the same; Dohrn was here yesterday, and was remarking that no one stood higher in the public estimation of Germany than Lyell.

How true and good what you say about Lyell. He is always the same; Dohrn was here yesterday and noted that no one is held in higher regard in Germany than Lyell.

I am truly and profoundly glad that you are thinking of some general work on Geographical Distribution, or so forth; I hope to God that your incessant occupations may not interrupt this intention. As for my book, I shall not have done the accursed proofs till the end of November (238/4. The proofs of the "Descent of Man" were finished on January 15th, 1871.): good Lord, what a muddled head I have got on my wretched old shoulders.

I’m really happy to hear that you’re considering doing some general work on Geographical Distribution or something like that; I truly hope that your busy schedule won’t get in the way of this plan. As for my book, I won’t have the annoying proofs done until the end of November (238/4. The proofs of the "Descent of Man" were finished on January 15th, 1871.): good grief, what a confused mind I have on my miserable old shoulders.

LETTER 239. TO H. SETTEGAST. Down, September 29th, 1870.

I am very much obliged for your kind letter and present of your beautiful volume. (239/1. "Die Thierzucht," 1868.) Your work is not new to me, for I heard it so highly spoken of that I procured a copy of the first edition. It was a great gratification to me to find a man who had long studied with a philosophical spirit our domesticated animals, and who was highly competent to judge, agreeing to a large extent with my views. I regretted much that I had not known your work when I published my last volumes.

I really appreciate your kind letter and the gift of your beautiful book. (239/1. "Die Thierzucht," 1868.) Your work isn't new to me; I had heard such great things about it that I got a copy of the first edition. It was truly rewarding to find someone who has long studied our domesticated animals with a philosophical mindset and is highly qualified to judge, largely agreeing with my views. I really wished I had known about your work when I published my last volumes.

I am surprised and pleased to hear that science is not quite forgotten under the present exciting state of affairs. Every one whom I know in England is an enthusiastic wisher for the full and complete success of Germany.

I’m surprised and happy to hear that science isn’t completely forgotten in the current exciting times. Everyone I know in England is really enthusiastic about hoping for the full and complete success of Germany.

P.S. I will give one of my two copies of your work to some public scientific library in London.

P.S. I’ll donate one of my two copies of your work to a public science library in London.

LETTER 240. TO THE EDITOR OF THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE." Down, March 24th {1871}.

Mr. Darwin presents his compliments to the Editor, and would be greatly obliged if he would address and post the enclosed letter to the author of the two admirable reviews of the "Descent of Man." (240/1. The notices of the "Descent of Man," published in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of March 20th and 21st, 1871, were by Mr. John Morley. We are indebted to the Editor of the "Pall Mall Gazette" for kindly allowing us to consult his file of the journal.)

Mr. Darwin sends his regards to the Editor and would really appreciate it if he could address and mail the enclosed letter to the author of the two excellent reviews of the "Descent of Man." (240/1. The notices of the "Descent of Man," published in the "Pall Mall Gazette" on March 20th and 21st, 1871, were written by Mr. John Morley. We thank the Editor of the "Pall Mall Gazette" for kindly letting us consult his file of the journal.)

LETTER 241. TO JOHN MORLEY. Down, March 24th, 1871.

From the spirit of your review in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of my last book, which has given me great pleasure, I have thought that you would perhaps inform me on one point, withholding, if you please, your name.

From the tone of your review in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of my latest book, which I really appreciated, I thought you might share your thoughts on one point, and feel free to keep your name private.

You say that my phraseology on beauty is "loose scientifically, and philosophically most misleading." (241/1. "Mr. Darwin's work is one of those rare and capital achievements of intellect which effect a grave modification throughout all the highest departments of the realm of opinion...There is throughout the description and examination of Sexual Selection a way of speaking of beauty, which seems to us to be highly unphilosophical, because it assumes a certain theory of beauty, which the most competent modern thinkers are too far from accepting, to allow its assumption to be quite judicious...Why should we only find the aesthetic quality in birds wonderful, when it happens to coincide with our own? In other words, why attribute to them conscious aesthetic qualities at all? There is no more positive reason for attributing aesthetic consciousness to the Argus pheasant than there is for attributing to bees geometric consciousness of the hexagonal prisms and rhombic plates of the hive which they so marvellously construct. Hence the phraseology which Mr. Darwin employs in this part of the subject, though not affecting the degree of probability which may belong to this theory, seems to us to be very loose scientifically, and philosophically most misleading."—"Pall Mall Gazette.") This is not at all improbable, as it is almost a lifetime since I attended to the philosophy of aesthetics, and did not then think that I should ever make use of my conclusions. Can you refer me to any one or two books (for my power of reading is not great) which would illumine me? or can you explain in one or two sentences how I err? Perhaps it would be best for me to explain what I mean by the sense of beauty in its lowest stage of development, and which can only apply to animals. When an intense colour, or two tints in harmony, or a recurrent and symmetrical figure please the eye, or a single sweet note pleases the ear, I call this a sense of beauty; and with this meaning I have spoken (though I now see in not a sufficiently guarded manner) of a taste for the beautiful being the same in mankind (for all savages admire bits of bright cloth, beads, plumes, etc.) and in the lower animals. If the blue and yellow plumage of a macaw (241/2. "What man deems the horrible contrasts of yellow and blue attract the macaw, while ball-and-socket-plumage attracts the Argus pheasant"—"Pall Mall Gazette," March 21st, 1871, page 1075.) pleases the eye of this bird, I should say that it had a sense of beauty, although its taste was bad according to our standard. Now, will you have the kindness to tell me how I can learn to see the error of my ways? Of course I recognise, as indeed I have remarked in my book, that the sense of beauty in the case of scenery, pictures, etc., is something infinitely complex, depending on varied associations and culture of the mind. From a very interesting review in the "Spectator," and from your and Wallace's review, I perceive that I have made a great oversight in not having said what little I could on the acquisition of the sense for the beautiful by man and the lower animals. It would indeed be an immense advantage to an author if he could read such criticisms as yours before publishing. At page 11 of your review you accidentally misquote my words placed by you within inverted commas, from my Volume II., page 354: I say that "man cannot endure any great change," and the omitted words "any great" make all the difference in the discussion. (241/3. "Mr. Darwin tells us, and gives us excellent reasons for thinking, that 'the men of each race prefer what they are accustomed to behold; they cannot endure change.' Yet is there not an inconsistency between this fact and the other that one race differs from another exactly because novelties presented themselves, and were eagerly seized and propagated?")

You say that my language about beauty is "not scientifically rigorous, and philosophically very misleading." (241/1. "Mr. Darwin's work is one of those rare and significant achievements of intellect that causes a serious shift throughout all the higher areas of opinion...There is a way of discussing beauty in the description and examination of Sexual Selection that seems to us to be highly unphilosophical, as it assumes a theory of beauty that the most knowledgeable modern thinkers are too far from accepting to consider its assumption wise...Why should we only find the aesthetic quality in birds amazing when it aligns with our own views? In other words, why attribute conscious aesthetic qualities to them at all? There’s no stronger reason to suggest that the Argus pheasant has aesthetic consciousness than there is to claim that bees possess geometric awareness of the hexagonal prisms and rhombic plates of the hive they astoundingly construct. Therefore, the way Mr. Darwin discusses this topic, while not impacting the level of probability that may pertain to this theory, seems to us to be quite scientifically inaccurate and philosophically misleading."—"Pall Mall Gazette.") This is not at all unlikely, as it has been almost a lifetime since I focused on the philosophy of aesthetics, and I didn’t think I would ever use my conclusions. Can you recommend one or two books (since my reading ability is limited) that would enlighten me? Or can you explain in a sentence or two where I'm mistaken? Perhaps it would be best for me to clarify what I mean by the sense of beauty in its most basic form, which applies only to animals. When a bright color, two harmonious shades, or a recurring and symmetrical shape pleases the eye, or a single lovely note pleases the ear, I refer to this as a sense of beauty; and with this meaning, I have commented (though I now realize not cautiously enough) on a taste for beauty being the same in humans (since all tribal people admire bits of bright cloth, beads, feathers, etc.) and in lower animals. If the blue and yellow feathers of a macaw (241/2. "What humans consider the terrible contrasts of yellow and blue attract the macaw, while ball-and-socket plumage attracts the Argus pheasant"—"Pall Mall Gazette," March 21st, 1871, page 1075.) please this bird's eye, I would say it has a sense of beauty, even if its taste is poor by our standards. Now, would you kindly let me know how I can recognize my mistakes? Of course, I acknowledge, as I mentioned in my book, that the sense of beauty regarding landscapes, paintings, etc., is something incredibly complex, influenced by various associations and cultural development. From a very interesting review in the "Spectator," and from your and Wallace's review, I see that I've made a significant oversight by not discussing what little I could on how humans and lower animals acquire a sense of beauty. It would certainly be a huge advantage for an author to read critiques like yours before publication. On page 11 of your review, you accidentally misquote my words that you placed in quotation marks from my Volume II., page 354: I state that "man cannot endure any great change," and omitting the words "any great" alters the discussion entirely. (241/3. "Mr. Darwin tells us, and gives us excellent reasons for thinking, that 'the men of each race prefer what they are accustomed to see; they cannot endure change.' Yet, isn't there an inconsistency between this fact and the other that one race differs from another precisely because novelties arise and are enthusiastically embraced and spread?")

Permit me to add a few other remarks. I believe your criticism is quite just about my deficient historic spirit, for I am aware of my ignorance in this line. (241/4. "In the historic spirit, however, Mr. Darwin must fairly be pronounced deficient. When, for instance, he speaks of the 'great sin of slavery' having been general among primitive nations, he forgets that, though to hold a slave would be a sinful degradation to a European to-day, the practice of turning prisoners of war into slaves, instead of butchering them, was not a sin at all, but marked a decided improvement in human manners.") On the other hand, if you should ever be led to read again Chapter III., and especially Chapter V., I think you will find that I am not amenable to all your strictures; though I felt that I was walking on a path unknown to me and full of pitfalls; but I had the advantage of previous discussions by able men. I tried to say most emphatically that a great philosopher, law-giver, etc., did far more for the progress of mankind by his writings or his example than by leaving a numerous offspring. I have endeavoured to show how the struggle for existence between tribe and tribe depends on an advance in the moral and intellectual qualities of the members, and not merely on their capacity of obtaining food. When I speak of the necessity of a struggle for existence in order that mankind should advance still higher in the scale, I do not refer to the MOST, but "to the MORE highly gifted men" being successful in the battle for life; I referred to my supposition of the men in any country being divided into two equal bodies—viz., the more and the less highly gifted, and to the former on an average succeeding best.

Let me add a few more comments. I think your critique about my lack of historical understanding is spot on since I'm aware of my shortcomings in this area. (241/4. "In terms of historical understanding, Mr. Darwin is indeed lacking. For example, when he talks about the 'great sin of slavery' being widespread among primitive societies, he overlooks the fact that, while owning a slave would be seen as a moral failure by today's standards, the practice of turning war prisoners into slaves, instead of killing them, was not considered immoral at that time; it actually represented a significant improvement in human behavior.") On another note, if you ever decide to reread Chapter III. and especially Chapter V., I believe you'll see that I don't fully agree with all your criticisms; although I did feel like I was exploring uncharted territory filled with risks, I benefited from the insights of knowledgeable individuals before me. I tried to convey strongly that a great thinker, lawmaker, etc., contributes much more to human progress through their writings or actions than by having many descendants. I aimed to illustrate how the competition for survival between tribes is influenced by the moral and intellectual advancement of their members, not just by their ability to secure food. When I discuss the need for a struggle for existence for humanity to progress further, I'm not talking about the majority, but rather about "the more capable individuals" succeeding in the survival race; I was referring to my idea of people in any society being split into two equal groups—namely, those who are more gifted and those who are less gifted—with the former generally prevailing.

But I have much cause to apologise for the length of this ill-expressed letter. My sole excuse is the extraordinary interest which I have felt in your review, and the pleasure which I have experienced in observing the points which have attracted your attention. I must say one word more. Having kept the subject of sexual selection in my mind for very many years, and having become more and more satisfied with it, I feel great confidence that as soon as the notion is rendered familiar to others, it will be accepted, at least to a much greater extent than at present. With sincere respect and thanks...

But I have a lot to apologize for the length of this poorly written letter. My only excuse is the incredible interest I've had in your review and the pleasure I've felt in noticing the points that caught your attention. I need to add one more thing. After thinking about the topic of sexual selection for many years and becoming increasingly convinced of its validity, I feel confident that as soon as the idea becomes familiar to others, it will be accepted, at least much more than it currently is. With sincere respect and thanks...

LETTER 242. TO JOHN MORLEY. Down, April 14th {1871}.

As this note requires no answer, I do not scruple to write a few lines to say how faithful and full a resume you have given of my notions on the moral sense in the "Pall Mall," and to make a few extenuating or explanatory remarks. (242/1. "What is called the question of the moral sense is really two: how the moral faculty is acquired, and how it is regulated. Why do we obey conscience or feel pain in disobeying it? And why does conscience prescribe one kind of action and condemn another kind? To put it more technically, there is the question of the subjective existence of conscience, and there is the question of its objective prescriptions. First, why do I think it obligatory to do my duty? Second, why do I think it my duty to do this and not do that? Although, however, the second question ought to be treated independently, for reasons which we shall presently suggest, the historical answer to it, or the various grounds on which men have identified certain sorts of conduct with duty, rather than conduct of the opposite sorts, throws light on the other question of the conditions of growth of the idea of duty as a sovereign and imperial director. Mr. Darwin seems to us not to have perfectly recognised the logical separation between the two sides of the moral sense question. For example, he says (i. 97) that 'philosophers of the derivative school of morals formerly assumed that the foundation of morality lay in a form of Selfishness; but more recently in the Greatest Happiness principle.' But Mr. Mill, to whom Mr. Darwin refers, has expressly shown that the Greatest Happiness principle is a STANDARD, and not a FOUNDATION, and that its validity as a standard of right and wrong action is just as tenable by one who believes the moral sense to be innate, as by one who holds that it is acquired. He says distinctly that the social feelings of mankind form 'the natural basis of sentiment for utilitarian morality.' So far from holding the Greatest Happiness principle to be the foundation of morality, he would describe it as the forming principle of the superstructure of which the social feelings of mankind are the foundation. Between Mr. Darwin and utilitarians, as utilitarians, there is no such quarrel as he would appear to suppose. The narrowest utilitarian could say little more than Mr. Darwin says (ii. 393): 'As all men desire their own happiness, praise or blame is bestowed on actions and motives according as they tend to this end; and, as happiness is an essential part of the general good, the Greatest Happiness principle INDIRECTLY serves as a NEARLY safe standard of right and wrong.' It is perhaps not impertinent to suspect that the faltering adverbs which we have printed in italics indicate no more than the reluctance of a half-conscious convert to pure utilitarianism. In another place (i. 98) he admits that 'as all wish for happiness, the Greatest Happiness principle will have become a most important secondary guide and object, the social instincts, including sympathy, always serving as the primary impulse and guide.' This is just what Mr. Mill says, only instead of calling the principle a secondary guide, he would call it a standard, to distinguish it from the social impulse, in which, as much as Mr. Darwin, he recognises the base and foundation."—"Pall Mall Gazette," April 12th, 1871.) How the mistake which I have made in speaking of greatest happiness as the foundation of morals arose, is utterly unintelligible to me: any time during the last several years I should have laughed such an idea to scorn. Mr. Lecky never made a greater blunder, and your kindness has made you let me off too easily. (242/2. In the first edition of the "Descent of Man," I., page 97, Mr. Lecky is quoted as one of those who assumed that the "foundation of morality lay in a form of selfishness; but more recently in the 'greatest happiness' principle." Mr. Lecky's name is omitted in this connection in the second edition, page 120. In this edition Mr. Darwin makes it clearer that he attaches most importance to the social instinct as the "primary impulse and guide.") With respect to Mr. Mill, nothing would have pleased me more than to have relied on his great authority with respect to the social instincts, but the sentence which I quote at {Volume I.} page 71 ("if, as is my own belief, the moral feelings are not innate, but acquired, they are not for that reason less natural") seems to me somewhat contradictory with the other words which I quote, so that I did not know what to think; more especially as he says so very little about the social instincts. When I speak of intellectual activity as the secondary basis of conscience, I meant in my own mind secondary in period of development; but no one could be expected to understand so great an ellipse. With reference to your last sentence, do you not think that man might have retrograded in his parental, marriage, and other instincts without having retrograded in his social instincts? and I do not think that there is any evidence that man ever existed as a non-social animal. I must add that I have been very glad to read your remarks on the supposed case of the hive-bee: it affords an amusing contrast with what Miss Cobbe has written in the "Theological Review." (242/3. Mr. Darwin says ("Descent of Man" Edition I., Volume I., page 73; Edition II., page 99), "that if men lived like bees our unmarried females would think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers." Miss Cobbe remarks on this "that the principles of social duty would be reversed" ("Theological Review," April 1872). Mr. Morley, on the other hand, says of Darwin's assertion, that it is "as reassuring as the most absolute of moralists could desire. For it is tantamount to saying that the foundations of morality, the distinctions of right and wrong, are deeply laid in the very conditions of social existence; that there is in face of these conditions a positive and definite difference between the moral and the immoral, the virtuous and the vicious, the right and the wrong, in the actions of individuals partaking of that social existence.") Undoubtedly the great principle of acting for the good of all the members of the same community, and therefore the good of the species, would still have held sovereign sway.

As this note doesn’t require a response, I’m going to take a moment to express how accurately and thoroughly you summarized my ideas on moral sense in the "Pall Mall," along with a few clarifying comments. (242/1. "What we call the question of moral sense actually breaks down into two parts: how we acquire the moral faculty and how it is regulated. Why do we obey our conscience or feel distress when we don’t? And why does conscience dictate one type of action while condemning another? To put it more technically, there’s the question of the subjective existence of conscience and the question of its objective mandates. First, why do I feel obligated to fulfill my duty? Second, why do I believe certain actions are my duty while others are not? Although the second question should be addressed separately, for reasons I'll explain soon, examining the historical responses to it—why people have linked certain behaviors with duty rather than the opposite—provides insight into how the concept of duty develops as a significant guiding force. Mr. Darwin seems not to have fully recognized the logical distinction between these two aspects of the moral sense. For instance, he notes (i. 97) that 'philosophers from the derivative school of morals previously assumed that morality was based on a form of selfishness; but more recently on the Greatest Happiness principle.' However, Mr. Mill, whom Mr. Darwin references, has clearly shown that the Greatest Happiness principle is a STANDARD, not a FOUNDATION, and that its validity as a measure of right and wrong can be supported by those who believe moral sense is innate, just as much as by those who view it as acquired. He explicitly states that the social feelings of humanity form 'the natural basis of sentiment for utilitarian morality.' Rather than considering the Greatest Happiness principle the foundation of morality, he would describe it as the forming principle of the superstructure, which rests on the social feelings of humanity. There isn't any real dispute between Mr. Darwin and utilitarians; the narrowest utilitarian could hardly say more than Mr. Darwin does (ii. 393): 'Since everyone wants their own happiness, praise or blame is assigned to actions and motives based on how they tend toward this goal; and since happiness is a key aspect of the collective good, the Greatest Happiness principle INDIRECTLY acts as a NEARLY safe standard of right and wrong.' It might not be inappropriate to suggest that the hesitant adverbs we’ve italicized reflect the reluctance of someone still coming to terms with pure utilitarianism. In another instance (i. 98), he acknowledges that 'since everyone wishes for happiness, the Greatest Happiness principle will have become a crucial secondary guide and objective, with social instincts—including sympathy—serving as the primary drive and guide.' This matches Mr. Mill's statement, except that instead of calling the principle a secondary guide, he refers to it as a standard, distinguishing it from the social impulse, which he, like Mr. Darwin, views as the base and foundation."—"Pall Mall Gazette," April 12th, 1871.) I find it completely perplexing how I mistakenly referred to the greatest happiness as the basis of morality—there was a time in the past several years when I would have dismissed such a notion outright. Mr. Lecky never made a greater error, and your kindness has let me off too lightly. (242/2. In the first edition of the "Descent of Man," I., page 97, Mr. Lecky is mentioned as one who assumed that the "foundation of morality was based on a form of selfishness; but more recently on the 'greatest happiness' principle." Mr. Lecky's reference is omitted in the second edition, page 120. In this edition, Mr. Darwin clarifies that he emphasizes the social instinct as the "primary impulse and guide.") Regarding Mr. Mill, nothing would have pleased me more than to lean on his esteemed authority concerning social instincts, but the quote I give at {Volume I.} page 71 ("if, as I believe, moral feelings are not innate, but acquired, they are no less natural for that reason") seems somewhat contradictory to his other statements, leaving me unsure how to interpret it, especially since he says so little about social instincts. When I mention intellectual activity as the secondary basis of conscience, I mean it to be secondary in terms of developmental timeline; however, it’s unreasonable to expect anyone to grasp such a vast leap. Concerning your final sentence, don’t you think it’s possible for humans to have regressed in parental, marital, and other instincts without having regressed socially? I also don’t believe there’s evidence that humans ever existed as non-social beings. I must add that I really enjoyed reading your comments on the supposed behavior of hive-bees; it provides an amusing contrast to what Miss Cobbe has said in the "Theological Review." (242/3. Mr. Darwin states ("Descent of Man" Edition I., Volume I., page 73; Edition II., page 99), "that if men lived like bees, our unmarried females would consider it a sacred duty to kill their brothers." Miss Cobbe responds by noting that "the principles of social duty would be reversed" ("Theological Review," April 1872). Mr. Morley, however, comments on Darwin's claim, asserting that it’s "as reassuring as the most absolute moralists could wish. For it suggests that the foundations of morality—the distinctions between right and wrong—are deeply rooted in the very conditions of social existence; that a clear and positive distinction exists between the moral and the immoral, the virtuous and the vicious, the right and the wrong, in the actions of individuals living within that social context.") Without a doubt, the fundamental principle of acting for the good of all members within the same community—and therefore the good of the species—would still have maintained its authoritative influence.

LETTER 243. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(243/1. Sir Joseph Hooker wrote (August 5th, 1871) to Darwin about Lord Kelvin's Presidential Address at the Edinburgh meeting of the British Association: "It seems to me to be very able indeed; and what a good notion it gives of the gigantic achievement of mathematicians and physicists!—it really made one giddy to read of them. I do not think Huxley will thank him for his reference to him as a positive unbeliever in spontaneous generation—these mathematicians do not seem to me to distinguish between un-belief and a-belief. I know no other name for the state of mind that is produced under the term scepticism. I had no idea before that pure Mathematics had achieved such wonders in practical science. The total absence of any allusion to Tyndall's labours, even when comets are his theme, seems strange to me.")

(243/1. Sir Joseph Hooker wrote (August 5th, 1871) to Darwin about Lord Kelvin's Presidential Address at the Edinburgh meeting of the British Association: "It seems to me to be really impressive; and what a great insight it provides into the remarkable accomplishments of mathematicians and physicists!—it truly made me feel dizzy to read about them. I don’t think Huxley will appreciate his reference to him as a firm unbeliever in spontaneous generation—these mathematicians don’t seem to make a clear distinction between disbelief and a lack of belief. I can’t think of another term for the mindset produced by skepticism. I had no idea before that pure Mathematics had achieved such amazing things in practical science. The complete lack of any mention of Tyndall's work, even when comets are the topic, seems odd to me.")

Haredene, Albury, Guildford, August 6th {1871}.

I have read with greatest interest Thomson's address; but you say so EXACTLY AND FULLY all that I think, that you have taken all the words from my mouth; even about Tyndall. It is a gain that so wonderful a man, though no naturalist, should become a convert to evolution; Huxley, it seems, remarked in his speech to this effect. I should like to know what he means about design,—I cannot in the least understand, for I presume he does not believe in special interpositions. (243/2. See "British Association Report," page cv. Lord Kelvin speaks very doubtfully of evolution. After quoting the concluding passage of the "Origin," he goes on, "I have omitted two sentences...describing briefly the hypothesis of 'the origin of species by Natural Selection,' because I have always felt that this hypothesis does not contain the true theory of evolution, IF EVOLUTION THERE HAS BEEN in biology" (the italics are not in the original). Lord Kelvin then describes as a "most valuable and instructive criticism," Sir John Herschel's remark that the doctrine of Natural Selection is "too like the Laputan method of making books, and that it did not sufficiently take into account a continually guiding and controlling intelligence." But it should be remembered that it was in this address of Lord Kelvin's that he suggested the possibility of "seed-bearing meteoric stones moving about through space" inoculating the earth with living organisms; and if he assumes that the whole population of the globe is to be traced back to these "moss-grown fragments from the ruins of another world," it is obvious that he believes in a form of evolution, and one in which a controlling intelligence is not very obvious, at all events not in the initial and all-important stage.) Herschel's was a good sneer. It made me put in the simile about Raphael's Madonna, when describing in the "Descent of Man" the manner of formation of the wondrous ball-and-socket ornaments, and I will swear to the truth of this case. (243/3. See "Descent of Man," II., page 141. Darwin says that no one will attribute the shading of the "eyes" on the wings of the Argus pheasant to the "fortuitous concourse of atoms of colouring-matter." He goes on to say that the development of the ball-and-socket effect by means of Natural Selection seems at first as incredible as that "one of Raphael's Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of chance daubs of paint." The remark of Herschel's, quoted in "Life and Letters," II., page 241, that the "Origin" illustrates the "law of higgledy-piggledy," is probably a conversational variant of the Laputan comparison which gave rise to the passage in the "Descent of Man" (see Letter 130).)

I read Thomson's address with great interest; you express EXACTLY AND FULLY everything I think, so you’ve taken the words right out of my mouth, even about Tyndall. It’s a benefit that such an incredible person, even though he’s not a naturalist, has become a supporter of evolution; Huxley, it seems, mentioned this in his speech. I’d like to understand what he means by design—I can't grasp it at all, as I assume he doesn't believe in specific interventions. (243/2. See "British Association Report," page cv. Lord Kelvin expresses significant doubts about evolution. After quoting the concluding passage of the "Origin," he continues, "I have omitted two sentences...briefly describing the hypothesis of 'the origin of species by Natural Selection,' because I have always felt that this hypothesis does not include the true theory of evolution, IF EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED in biology" (the italics are not in the original). Lord Kelvin then refers to Sir John Herschel's comment as a "most valuable and instructive criticism," stating that the doctrine of Natural Selection resembles "the Laputan method of making books" and doesn’t adequately consider a continuously guiding and controlling intelligence. However, it should be noted that in this address, Lord Kelvin suggested the idea of "seed-bearing meteoric stones traveling through space" seeding the earth with living organisms; and if he argues that the entire global population can be traced back to these "moss-grown fragments from the ruins of another world," it’s clear he believes in a type of evolution, one in which a controlling intelligence isn’t very apparent, especially not in the initial and crucial stage.) Herschel's jab was clever. It inspired me to include the comparison about Raphael's Madonna when discussing in the "Descent of Man" how those magnificent ball-and-socket ornaments were formed, and I can vouch for the accuracy of this example. (243/3. See "Descent of Man," II., page 141. Darwin states that no one would attribute the shading of the "eyes" on the wings of the Argus pheasant to the "random interaction of atoms of coloring matter." He goes on to assert that the development of the ball-and-socket feature through Natural Selection initially seems as unbelievable as claiming that "one of Raphael's Madonnas was created by randomly selecting chance splashes of paint." The remark from Herschel, cited in "Life and Letters," II., page 241, that the "Origin" illustrates the "law of higgledy-piggledy," is likely a conversational variation of the Laputan comparison that gave rise to the passage in the "Descent of Man" (see Letter 130).)

You know the oak-leaved variety of the common honeysuckle; I could not persuade a lady that this was not the result of the honeysuckle climbing up a young oak tree! Is this not like the Viola case?

You know the oak-leaved type of the common honeysuckle; I couldn’t convince a lady that this wasn’t because the honeysuckle was climbing up a young oak tree! Isn’t this similar to the Viola situation?

LETTER 244. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (LORD AVEBURY). Haredene, Albury, Guildford, August 12th {1871}.

I hope the proof-sheets having been sent here will not inconvenience you. I have read them with infinite satisfaction, and the whole discussion strikes me as admirable. I have no books here, and wish much I could see a plate of Campodea. (244/1. "On the Origin of Insects." By Sir John Lubbock, Bart. "Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zoology)," Volume XI., 1873, pages 422-6. (Read November 2nd, 1871.) In the concluding paragraph the author writes, "If these views are correct the genus Campodea {a beetle} must be regarded as a form of remarkable interest, since it is the living representative of a primaeval type from which not only the Collembola and Thysanura, but the other great orders of insects, have all derived their origin." (See also "Brit. Assoc. Report," 1872, page 125—Address by Sir John Lubbock; and for a figure of Campodea see "Nature," Volume VII., 1873, page 447.) I never reflected much on the difficulty which you indicate, and on which you throw so much light. (244/2. The difficulty alluded to is explained by the first sentence of Lord Avebury's paper. "The Metamorphoses of this group (Insects) have always seemed to me one of the greatest difficulties of the Darwinian theory...I feel great difficulty in conceiving by what natural process an insect with a suctorial mouth, like that of a gnat or butterfly, could be developed from a powerfully mandibulate type like the orthoptera, or even from the neuroptera...A clue to the difficulty may, I think, be found in the distinction between the developmental and adaptive changes to which I called the attention of the Society in a previous memoir."

I hope the proof sheets that were sent here won't cause you any issues. I've read them with great pleasure, and I find the whole discussion to be excellent. I don’t have any books with me, and I really wish I could see a picture of Campodea. (244/1. "On the Origin of Insects." By Sir John Lubbock, Bart. "Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zoology)," Volume XI., 1873, pages 422-6. (Read November 2nd, 1871.) In the final paragraph, the author writes, "If these views are correct, the genus Campodea {a beetle} must be regarded as a form of remarkable interest, since it is the living representative of a primitive type from which not only the Collembola and Thysanura, but the other major orders of insects, have all derived their origin." (See also "Brit. Assoc. Report," 1872, page 125—Address by Sir John Lubbock; and for a figure of Campodea see "Nature," Volume VII., 1873, page 447.) I never really thought much about the difficulty you mention, and you shed a lot of light on it. (244/2. The difficulty referred to is explained by the first sentence of Lord Avebury's paper. "The Metamorphoses of this group (Insects) have always seemed to me one of the greatest challenges to the Darwinian theory...I find it hard to imagine how an insect with a sucking mouth, like a gnat or butterfly, could develop from a strongly mandible type like the orthoptera, or even from the neuroptera...A clue to the difficulty may, I believe, be found in the distinction between the developmental and adaptive changes that I previously drew attention to in a prior memoir.")

The distinction between developmental and adaptive changes is mentioned, but not discussed, in the paper "On the Origin of Insects" (loc. cit., page 422); in a former paper, "On the Development of Chloeon (Ephemera) dimidiatum ("Trans. Linn. Soc." XXV. page 477, 1866), this question is dealt with at length.) I have only a few trifling remarks to make. At page 44 I wish you had enlarged a little on what you have said of the distinction between developmental and adaptive changes; for I cannot quite remember the point, and others will perhaps be in the same predicament. I think I always saw that the larva and the adult might be separately modified to any extent. Bearing in mind what strange changes of function parts undergo, with the intermediate state of use (244/3. This slightly obscure phrase may be paraphrased, "the gradational stages being of service to the organism."), it seems to me that you speak rather too boldly on the impossibility of a mandibulate insect being converted into a sucking insect (244/4. "There are, however, peculiar difficulties in those cases in which, as among the lepidoptera, the same species is mandibulate as a larva and suctorial as an embryo" (Lubbock, "Origin of Insects," page 423).); not that I in the least doubt the value of your explanation.

The difference between developmental and adaptive changes is mentioned but not discussed in the paper "On the Origin of Insects" (loc. cit., page 422); in a previous paper, "On the Development of Chloeon (Ephemera) dimidiatum" ("Trans. Linn. Soc." XXV. page 477, 1866), this question is explored in detail. I have just a few minor comments to add. On page 44, I wish you had elaborated a bit more on the distinction between developmental and adaptive changes, because I can't quite recall the details, and others might be in the same situation. I’ve always thought that the larva and the adult could be modified separately to any degree. Considering the strange changes in function that parts can undergo, along with their intermediate stages being useful to the organism, it seems to me that you might be asserting a bit too much about the impossibility of a mandibulate insect becoming a sucking insect; though I don’t doubt the value of your explanation at all.

Cirripedes passing through what I have called a pupal state (244/5. "Hence, the larva in this, its last stage, cannot eat; it may be called a "locomotive Pupa;" its whole organisation is apparently adapted for the one great end of finding a proper site for its attachment and final metamorphosis." ("A Monograph on the Sub-Class Cirripedia." By Charles Darwin. London, Ray Soc., 1851.)) so far as their mouths are concerned, rather supports what you say at page 52.

Cirripedes going through what I've referred to as a pupal stage (244/5. "So, the larva in this final stage can't eat; it can be called a 'locomotive pupa;' its entire structure seems designed for the main purpose of locating a suitable spot for attaching and completing its transformation." ("A Monograph on the Sub-Class Cirripedia." By Charles Darwin. London, Ray Soc., 1851.)) somewhat backs up what you mentioned on page 52.

At page 40 your remarks on the Argus pheasant (244/6. There is no mention of the Argus pheasant in the published paper.) (though I have not the least objection to them) do not seem to me very appropriate as being related to the mental faculties. If you can spare me these proof-sheets when done with, I shall be obliged, as I shall be correcting a new edition of the "Origin" when I return home, though this subject is too large for me to enter on. I thank you sincerely for the great interest which your discussion has given me.

At page 40, your comments on the Argus pheasant (244/6. There is no mention of the Argus pheasant in the published paper.) (although I have no objections to them) don’t seem very relevant to the topic of mental faculties. If you can send me these proof-sheets when you’re done with them, I would appreciate it, as I will be editing a new edition of the "Origin" when I get home, even though this topic is too extensive for me to fully tackle. I sincerely thank you for the significant interest your discussion has sparked in me.

LETTER 245. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(245/1. The following letter refers to Mivart's "Genesis of Species.")

Down, September 16th {1871}.

Down, September 16, 1871.

I am preparing a new and cheap edition of the "Origin," and shall introduce a new chapter on gradation, and on the uses of initial commencements of useful structures; for this, I observe, has produced the greatest effect on most persons. Every one of his {Mivart's} cases, as it seems to me, can be answered in a fairly satisfactory manner. He is very unfair, and never says what he must have known could be said on my side. He ignores the effect of use, and what I have said in all my later books and editions on the direct effects of the conditions of life and so-called spontaneous variation. I send you by this post a very clever, but ill-written review from N. America by a friend of Asa Gray, which I have republished. (245/2. Chauncey Wright in the "North American Review," Volume CXIII., reprinted by Darwin and published as a pamphlet (see "Life and Letters," III., page 145).)

I’m putting together a new, affordable edition of the "Origin," and I’m going to add a new chapter about gradation and the initial development of useful structures. I’ve noticed this has had the biggest impact on most people. It seems to me that every one of {Mivart's} cases can be addressed quite satisfactorily. He’s very one-sided and never acknowledges the points he must have known could be made on my behalf. He overlooks the role of use and what I’ve discussed in all my later books and editions regarding the direct effects of living conditions and so-called spontaneous variation. I’m sending you a very insightful, though poorly written, review from North America by a friend of Asa Gray, which I have republished. (245/2. Chauncey Wright in the "North American Review," Volume CXIII., reprinted by Darwin and published as a pamphlet (see "Life and Letters," III., page 145).)

I am glad to hear about Huxley. You never read such strong letters Mivart wrote to me about respect towards me, begging that I would call on him, etc., etc.; yet in the "Q. Review" (245/3. See "Quarterly Review," July 1871; also "Life and Letters," III., page 147.) he shows the greatest scorn and animosity towards me, and with uncommon cleverness says all that is most disagreeable. He makes me the most arrogant, odious beast that ever lived. I cannot understand him; I suppose that accursed religious bigotry is at the root of it. Of course he is quite at liberty to scorn and hate me, but why take such trouble to express something more than friendship? It has mortified me a good deal.

I’m happy to hear about Huxley. You wouldn't believe the strong letters Mivart sent me, expressing how much he respected me and asking me to visit him, etc., etc.; yet in the "Q. Review" (245/3. See "Quarterly Review," July 1871; also "Life and Letters," III., page 147.) he shows the greatest disdain and hostility toward me, and with remarkable cleverness, he says the most unpleasant things. He portrays me as the most arrogant, repulsive person who ever lived. I can't make sense of it; I guess that damn religious intolerance is at the heart of it. Of course, he’s free to scorn and dislike me, but why go out of his way to express something beyond friendship? It's really hurt me a lot.

LETTER 246. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 4th {1871}.

I am quite delighted that you think so highly of Huxley's article. (246/1. A review of Wallace's "Natural Selection," of Mivart's "Genesis of Species," and of the "Quarterly Review" article on the "Descent of Man" (July, 1871), published in the "Contemporary Review" (1871), and in Huxley's "Collected Essays," II., page 120.) I was afraid of saying all I thought about it, as nothing is so likely as to make anything appear flat. I thought of, and quite agreed with, your former saying that Huxley makes one feel quite infantile in intellect. He always thus acts on me. I exactly agree with what you say on the several points in the article, and I piled climax on climax of admiration in my letter to him. I am not so good a Christian as you think me, for I did enjoy my revenge on Mivart. He (i.e. Mivart) has just written to me as cool as a cucumber, hoping my health is better, etc. My head, by the way, plagues me terribly, and I have it light and rocking half the day. Farewell, dear old friend—my best of friends.

I'm really glad you think so highly of Huxley's article. (246/1. A review of Wallace's "Natural Selection," Mivart's "Genesis of Species," and the "Quarterly Review" article on the "Descent of Man" (July, 1871), published in the "Contemporary Review" (1871), and in Huxley's "Collected Essays," II., page 120.) I was hesitant to share all my thoughts on it since nothing can make something feel more underwhelming. I thought of, and completely agreed with, your earlier comment that Huxley makes one feel quite childlike in intellect. He always has that effect on me. I completely agree with what you said about the various points in the article, and I added layer upon layer of admiration in my letter to him. I'm not as good a Christian as you think, because I did take pleasure in getting back at Mivart. He (i.e. Mivart) just wrote to me nonchalantly, hoping my health is better, etc. By the way, my head is really bothering me, and I’ve had it light and rocking half the day. Goodbye, dear old friend—my best friend.

LETTER 247. TO JOHN FISKE.

(247/1. Mr. Fiske, who is perhaps best known in England as the author of "Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy," had sent to Mr. Darwin some reports of the lectures given at Harvard University. The point referred to in the postscript in Mr. Darwin's letter is explained by the following extract from Mr. Fiske's work: "I have endeavoured to show that the transition from animality (or bestiality, stripping the word of its bad connotations) to humanity must have been mainly determined by the prolongation of infancy or immaturity which is consequent upon a high development of intelligence, and which must have necessitated the gradual grouping together of pithecoid men into more or less definite families." (See "Descent," I., page 13, on the prolonged infancy of the anthropoid apes.))

(247/1. Mr. Fiske, who is perhaps best known in England as the author of "Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy," had sent Mr. Darwin some reports of the lectures given at Harvard University. The point mentioned in the postscript of Mr. Darwin's letter is clarified by the following excerpt from Mr. Fiske's work: "I have tried to show that the shift from animal nature (or bestiality, without its negative connotations) to human nature must have been primarily influenced by the extended period of infancy or immaturity that comes from advanced intelligence, which would have required pithecoid humans to gradually form more or less defined families." (See "Descent," I., page 13, on the prolonged infancy of the anthropoid apes.))

Down, November 9th, 1871.

Down, November 9, 1871.

I am greatly obliged to you for having sent me, through my son, your lectures, and for the very honourable manner in which you allude to my works. The lectures seem to me to be written with much force, clearness, and originality. You show also a truly extraordinary amount of knowledge of all that has been published on the subject. The type in many parts is so small that, except to young eyes, it is very difficult to read. Therefore I wish that you would reflect on their separate publication, though so much has been published on the subject that the public may possibly have had enough. I hope that this may be your intention, for I do not think I have ever seen the general argument more forcibly put so as to convert unbelievers.

I really appreciate you sending your lectures to me through my son and for the kind way you mention my work. I find the lectures to be written with great strength, clarity, and originality. You also demonstrate an impressive depth of knowledge about everything that has been published on the topic. The text in many parts is so small that it's quite hard to read unless you have young eyes. So, I hope you'll consider publishing them separately, although there has been a lot published on this topic, so the public might be somewhat saturated. I hope this is your plan because I don’t think I’ve ever seen the overall argument presented so effectively to persuade skeptics.

It has surprised and pleased me to see that you and others have detected the falseness of much of Mr. Mivart's reasoning. I wish I had read your lectures a month or two ago, as I have been preparing a new edition of the "Origin," in which I answer some special points, and I believe I should have found your lectures useful; but my MS. is now in the printer's hands, and I have not strength or time to make any more additions.

It has been both surprising and satisfying to see that you and others have recognized the flaws in much of Mr. Mivart's reasoning. I wish I had read your lectures a month or two ago because I’ve been putting together a new edition of the "Origin," where I address some specific points, and I think your lectures would have been helpful. However, my manuscript is now with the printer, and I don't have the strength or time to make any further additions.

P.S.—By an odd coincidence, since the above was written I have received your very obliging letter of October 23rd. I did notice the point to which you refer, and will hereafter reflect more over it. I was indeed on the point of putting in a sentence to somewhat of the same effect in the new edition of the "Origin," in relation to the query—Why have not apes advanced in intellect as much as man? but I omitted it on account of the asserted prolonged infancy of the orang. I am also a little doubtful about the distinction between gregariousness and sociability.

P.S.—Funny enough, since writing the above, I got your thoughtful letter from October 23rd. I noticed the point you mentioned and will think more about it from now on. I was actually about to include a sentence with a similar idea in the new edition of the "Origin," regarding the question—Why haven’t apes progressed in intelligence as much as humans?—but I left it out because of the claimed prolonged infancy of the orangutan. I’m also a bit unsure about the difference between gregariousness and sociability.

...When you come to England I shall have much pleasure in making your acquaintance; but my health is habitually so weak that I have very small power of conversing with my friends as much as I wish. Let me again thank you for your letter. To believe that I have at all influenced the minds of able men is the greatest satisfaction I am capable of receiving.

...When you come to England, I will be very happy to meet you; however, my health is usually quite weak, which limits my ability to chat with my friends as much as I'd like. Let me thank you once more for your letter. Knowing that I have had any influence on the thoughts of capable individuals is the greatest satisfaction I can receive.

LETTER 248. TO E. HACKEL. Down, December 27th, 1871.

I thank you for your very interesting letter, which it has given me much pleasure to receive. I never heard of anything so odd as the Prior in the Holy Catholic Church believing in our ape-like progenitors. I much hope that the Jesuits will not dislodge him.

I appreciate your fascinating letter; it was a real pleasure to receive it. I've never heard anything so strange as the Prior in the Holy Catholic Church believing in our ape-like ancestors. I really hope the Jesuits don’t remove him.

What a wonderfully active man you are! and I rejoice that you have been so successful in your work on sponges. (248/1. "Die Kalkschwamme: eine Monographie; 3 volumes: Berlin, 1872. H.J. Clark published a paper "On the Spongiae Ciliatae as Infusoria flagellata" in the "Mem. Boston Nat. Hist. Soc." Volume I., Part iii., 1866. See Hackel, op. cit., Volume I., page 24.) Your book with sixty plates will be magnificent. I shall be glad to learn what you think of Clark's view of sponges being flagellate infusorians; some observers in this country believe in him. I am glad you are going fully to consider inheritance, which is an all-important subject for us. I do not know whether you have ever read my chapter on pangenesis. My ideas have been almost universally despised, and I suppose that I was foolish to publish them; yet I must still think that there is some truth in them. Anyhow, they have aided me much in making me clearly understand the facts of inheritance.

What an incredibly active person you are! I'm thrilled that you've been so successful in your work on sponges. (248/1. "Die Kalkschwamme: eine Monographie; 3 volumes: Berlin, 1872. H.J. Clark published a paper "On the Spongiae Ciliatae as Infusoria flagellata" in the "Mem. Boston Nat. Hist. Soc." Volume I., Part iii., 1866. See Hackel, op. cit., Volume I., page 24.) Your book with sixty plates is going to be amazing. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts on Clark's idea of sponges being flagellate infusorians; some observers in this country support him. I'm glad you're going to fully explore inheritance, which is a crucial topic for us. I don't know if you've ever read my chapter on pangenesis. My ideas have been widely dismissed, and I guess I was foolish to publish them; still, I must believe there's some truth in them. In any case, they've helped me a lot in clearly understanding the facts of inheritance.

I have had bad health this last summer, and during two months was able to do nothing; but I have now almost finished a next edition of the "Origin," which Victor Carus is translating. (248/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 49.) There is not much new in it, except one chapter in which I have answered, I hope satisfactorily, Mr. Mivart's supposed difficulty on the incipient development of useful structures. I have also given my reasons for quite disbelieving in great and sudden modifications. I am preparing an essay on expression in man and the lower animals. It has little importance, but has interested me. I doubt whether my strength will last for much more serious work. I hope, however, to publish next summer the results of my long-continued experiments on the wonderful advantages derived from crossing. I shall continue to work as long as I can, but it does not much signify when I stop, as there are so many good men fully as capable, perhaps more capable, than myself of carrying on our work; and of these you rank as the first.

I haven't been in great health this past summer, and for two months I couldn't do anything. However, I'm almost done with the next edition of the "Origin," which Victor Carus is translating. (248/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 49.) There's not much new in it except for one chapter where I hope I've satisfactorily addressed Mr. Mivart's supposed issue regarding the early development of useful structures. I've also shared my reasons for completely doubting the idea of major and sudden changes. I'm working on an essay about expression in humans and animals. It’s not very significant, but it has caught my interest. I’m not sure how much longer I’ll be able to handle serious work. Nevertheless, I hope to publish next summer the results of my extensive experiments on the remarkable benefits of crossing. I’ll keep working as long as I can, but it doesn’t matter much when I stop, since there are many good people who are just as capable, if not more so, than I am at continuing our work; and among them, you are at the top.

With cordial good wishes for your success in all your work and for your happiness.

With warm wishes for your success in everything you do and for your happiness.

LETTER 249. TO E. RAY LANKESTER. Down, April 15th {1872}.

Very many thanks for your kind consideration. The correspondence was in the "Athenaeum." I got some mathematician to make the calculation, and he blundered and caused me much shame. I send scrap of proofs from last edition of the "Origin," with the calculation corrected. What grand work you did at Naples! I can clearly see that you will some day become our first star in Natural History.

Thank you so much for your kind consideration. The correspondence was in the "Athenaeum." I had a mathematician do the calculation, but he messed up and embarrassed me a lot. I’m sending a proof from the last edition of the "Origin," with the calculation corrected. What an amazing job you did in Naples! I can clearly see that you will one day be our top expert in Natural History.

(249/1. Here follows the extract from the "Origin," sixth edition, page 51: "The elephant is reckoned the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase. It will be safest to assume that it begins breeding when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth six young in the interval, and surviving till one hundred years old; if this be so, after a period of from 740 to 750 years, there would be nearly nineteen million elephants alive, descended from the first pair." In the fifth edition, page 75, the passage runs: "If this be so, at the end of the fifth century, there would be alive fifteen million elephants, descended from the first pair" (see "Athenaeum," June 5, July 3, 17, 24, 1869).)

(249/1. Here’s the excerpt from the "Origin," sixth edition, page 51: "The elephant is considered the slowest reproducing of all known animals, and I’ve tried to estimate its likely minimum natural growth rate. It’s safest to assume that it starts reproducing at thirty years old and continues until ninety years old, having six offspring in that time, and living until one hundred years old; if that’s the case, after a span of about 740 to 750 years, there would be nearly nineteen million elephants alive, descended from the original pair." In the fifth edition, page 75, the text states: "If that’s true, by the end of the fifth century, there would be fifteen million elephants alive, descended from the original pair" (see "Athenaeum," June 5, July 3, 17, 24, 1869).)

LETTER 250. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 10th {1872}.

I received yesterday morning your present of that work to which I, for one, as well as so many others, owe a debt of gratitude never to be forgotten. I have read with the greatest interest all the special additions; and I wish with all my heart that I had the strength and time to read again every word of the whole book. (250/1. "Principles of Geology," Edition XII., 1875.) I do not agree with all your criticisms on Natural Selection, nor do I suppose that you would expect me to do so. We must be content to differ on several points. I differ must about your difficulty (page 496) (250/2. In Chapter XLIII. Lyell treats of "Man considered with reference to his Origin and Geographical Distribution." He criticizes the view that Natural Selection is capable of bringing about any amount of change provided a series of minute transitional steps can be pointed out. "But in reality," he writes, "it cannot be said that we obtain any insight into the nature of the forces by which a higher grade of organisation or instinct is evolved out of a lower one by becoming acquainted with a series of gradational forms or states, each having a very close affinity with the other."..."It is when there is a change from an inferior being to one of superior grade, from a humbler organism to one endowed with new and more exalted attributes, that we are made to feel that, to explain the difficulty, we must obtain some knowledge of those laws of variation of which Mr. Darwin grants that we are at present profoundly ignorant" (op. cit., pages 496-97).) on a higher grade of organisation being evolved out of lower ones. Is not a very clever man a grade above a very dull one? and would not the accumulation of a large number of slight differences of this kind lead to a great difference in the grade of organisation? And I suppose that you will admit that the difference in the brain of a clever and dull man is not much more wonderful than the difference in the length of the nose of any two men. Of course, there remains the impossibility of explaining at present why one man has a longer nose than another. But it is foolish of me to trouble you with these remarks, which have probably often passed through your mind. The end of this chapter (XLIII.) strikes me as admirably and grandly written. I wish you joy at having completed your gigantic undertaking, and remain, my dear Lyell,

I received your gift of that work yesterday morning, for which I, like so many others, am forever grateful. I’ve read all the special additions with great interest; I truly wish I had the strength and time to read every word of the entire book again. (250/1. "Principles of Geology," Edition XII., 1875.) I don’t agree with all your criticisms on Natural Selection, nor do I think you expect me to. We’ll have to be okay with differing on several points. I particularly disagree with your argument (page 496) (250/2. In Chapter XLIII. Lyell discusses "Man considered with reference to his Origin and Geographical Distribution." He critiques the idea that Natural Selection can produce a significant amount of change as long as there’s a series of tiny transitional steps. "But in reality," he writes, "it cannot be said that we gain any insight into the nature of the forces that evolve a higher level of organization or instinct from a lower one merely by knowing a series of gradual forms or states, each closely related to the other."..."It is when there is a transition from an inferior being to one of superior quality, from a simpler organism to one with new and more advanced traits, that we feel the need to understand those laws of variation, of which Mr. Darwin admits we are currently profoundly ignorant" (op. cit., pages 496-97).) about a higher level of organization evolving from lower ones. Isn't a smart person a grade above a dull one? And wouldn’t the accumulation of many small differences lead to a significant change in organization? I think you would agree that the difference between the brains of a smart person and a dull one isn't much more remarkable than the difference in the nose lengths of any two people. Of course, we still can’t explain why one person has a longer nose than another. But it’s silly of me to bother you with these thoughts, which you’ve probably considered many times before. The end of this chapter (XLIII.) strikes me as wonderfully and impressively written. I congratulate you on completing your monumental work, and I remain, my dear Lyell,

Your ever faithful and now very old pupil, CHARLES DARWIN.

Your loyal and now quite old student, CHARLES DARWIN.

LETTER 251. TO J. TRAHERNE MOGGRIDGE. Sevenoaks, October 9th {1872}.

I have just received your note, forwarded to me from my home. I thank you very truly for your intended present, and I am sure that your book will interest me greatly. I am delighted that you have taken up the very difficult and most interesting subject of the habits of insects, on which Englishmen have done so little. How incomparably more valuable are such researches than the mere description of a thousand species! I daresay you have thought of experimenting on the mental powers of the spiders by fixing their trap-doors open in different ways and at different angles, and observing what they will do.

I just got your note that was sent to me from home. I really appreciate your thoughtful gift, and I’m sure I’ll find your book very interesting. I’m excited that you’ve taken on the challenging and fascinating topic of insect behavior, especially since not much has been done on it by English researchers. Research like this is so much more valuable than just describing a thousand species! I bet you’ve considered experimenting with the mental abilities of spiders by keeping their trap doors open in various ways and angles to see how they respond.

We have been here some days, and intend staying some weeks; for I was quite worn out with work, and cannot be idle at home.

We’ve been here for a few days and plan to stay for several weeks because I was really worn out from working, and I can’t just sit around at home.

I sincerely hope that your health is not worse.

I genuinely hope your health isn’t any worse.

LETTER 252. TO A. HYATT.

(252/1. The correspondence with Professor Hyatt, of Boston, U.S., originated in the reference to his and Professor Cope's theories of acceleration and retardation, inserted in the sixth edition of the "Origin," page 149.

(252/1. The correspondence with Professor Hyatt from Boston, U.S., started because of the mention of his and Professor Cope's theories on acceleration and retardation, included in the sixth edition of the "Origin," page 149.

Mr. Darwin, on receiving from Mr. Hyatt a copy of his "Fossil Cephalopods of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Embryology," from the "Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool." Harvard, Volume III., 1872, wrote as follows (252/2. Part of this letter was published in "Life and Letters," III., page 154.):—)

Mr. Darwin, upon receiving a copy of Mr. Hyatt's "Fossil Cephalopods of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Embryology," published in the "Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool." Harvard, Volume III., 1872, wrote the following (252/2. A portion of this letter was published in "Life and Letters," III., page 154.):—)

October 10th, 1872.

October 10, 1872.

I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in having sent me your valuable memoir on the embryology of the extinct cephalopods. The work must have been one of immense labour, and the results are extremely interesting. Permit me to take this opportunity to express my sincere regret at having committed two grave errors in the last edition of my "Origin of Species," in my allusion to yours and Professor Cope's views on acceleration and retardation of development. I had thought that Professor Cope had preceded you; but I now well remember having formerly read with lively interest, and marked, a paper by you somewhere in my library, on fossil cephalopods, with remarks on the subject. (252/3. The paper seems to be "On the Parallelism between the Different Stages of Life in the Individual and those in the Entire Group of the Molluscous Order Tetrabranchiata," from the "Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem." I., 1866-69, page 193. On the back of the paper is written, "I cannot avoid thinking this paper fanciful.") It seems also that I have quite misrepresented your joint view; this has vexed me much. I confess that I have never been able to grasp fully what you wish to show, and I presume that this must be owing to some dulness on my part...As the case stands, the law of acceleration and retardation seems to me to be a simple {?} statement of facts; but the statement, if fully established, would no doubt be an important step in our knowledge. But I had better say nothing more on the subject, otherwise I shall perhaps blunder again. I assure you that I regret much that I have fallen into two such grave errors.

I really appreciate your kindness in sending me your valuable memoir on the embryology of extinct cephalopods. The work must have involved a lot of effort, and the findings are incredibly interesting. I’d like to take this chance to sincerely apologize for making two significant errors in the last edition of my "Origin of Species," regarding your views and Professor Cope's on the acceleration and retardation of development. I had thought that Professor Cope came before you; however, I now clearly remember reading and marking a paper by you in my library about fossil cephalopods, which included comments on the topic. (252/3. The paper seems to be "On the Parallelism between the Different Stages of Life in the Individual and those in the Entire Group of the Molluscous Order Tetrabranchiata," from the "Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem." I., 1866-69, page 193. On the back of the paper is written, "I cannot avoid thinking this paper fanciful.") It also seems I have completely misrepresented your joint view; this has troubled me a lot. I admit that I have never fully understood what you are trying to convey, and I assume this must be due to some confusion on my part...As it stands, the law of acceleration and retardation seems to me to be a simple {?} statement of facts; but if fully established, it could undoubtedly be a significant advancement in our understanding. However, I should refrain from saying anything more on the subject, or I might blunder again. I truly regret that I have made two such serious mistakes.

LETTER 253. A. HYATT TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(253/1. Mr. Hyatt replied in a long letter, of which only a small part is here given.

(253/1. Mr. Hyatt responded with a lengthy letter, of which only a small portion is provided here.

Cannstadt bei Stuttgart, November 1872.

Cannstatt near Stuttgart, November 1872.

The letter with which you have honoured me, bearing the date of October 10th, has just reached here after a voyage to America and back.

The letter you sent me, dated October 10th, has just arrived here after traveling to America and back.

I have long had it in mind to write you upon the subject of which you speak, but have been prevented by a very natural feeling of distrust in the worthiness and truth of the views which I had to present.

I’ve been meaning to write to you about what you mentioned, but I've held back because of a very natural feeling of doubt regarding the value and truth of the opinions I wanted to share.

There is certainly no occasion to apologise for not having quoted my paper. The law of acceleration and retardation of development was therein used to explain the appearance of other phenomena, and might, as it did in nearly all cases, easily escape notice.

There’s really no need to apologize for not quoting my paper. The law of acceleration and deceleration of development was used to explain the appearance of other phenomena, and, as it did in almost every case, it could easily go unnoticed.

My relations with Prof. Cope are of the most friendly character; and although fortunate in publishing a few months ahead, I consider that this gives me no right to claim anything beyond such an amount of participation in the discovery, if it may be so called, as the thoroughness and worth of my work entitles me to...

My relationship with Prof. Cope is very friendly; and even though I was lucky enough to publish a few months earlier, I don't think this gives me the right to claim anything more than the level of involvement in the discovery, if it can be called that, that the thoroughness and quality of my work warrants...

The collections which I have studied, it will be remembered, are fossils collected without special reference to the very minute subdivisions, such as the subdivisions of the Lower or Middle Lias as made by the German authors, especially Quenstedt and Oppel, but pretty well defined for the larger divisions in which the species are also well defined. The condition of the collections as regards names, etc., was chaotic, localities alone, with some few exceptions, accurate. To put this in order they were first arranged according to their adult characteristics. This proving unsatisfactory, I determined to test thoroughly the theory of evolution by following out the developmental history of each species and placing them within their formations, Middle or Upper Lias, Oolite or so, according to the extent to which they represented each other's characteristics. Thus an adult of simple structure being taken as the starting-point which we will call a, another species which was a in its young stage and became b in the adult was placed above it in the zoological series. By this process I presently found that a, then a b and a b c, c representing the adult stage, were very often found; but that practically after passing these two or three stages it did not often happen that a species was found which was a b c in the young and then became d in the adult. But on the other hand I very frequently found one which, while it was a in the young, skipped the stages b and c and became d while still quite young. Then sometimes, though more rarely, a species would be found belonging to the same series, which would be a in the young and with a very faint and fleeting resemblance to d at a later stage, pass immediately while still quite young to the more advanced characteristics represented by e, and hold these as its specific characteristics until old age destroyed them. This skipping is the highest exemplification, or rather manifestation, of acceleration in development. In alluding to the history of diseases and inheritance of characteristics, you in your "Origin of Species" allude to the ordinary manifestation of acceleration, when you speak of the tendency of diseases or characteristics to appear at younger periods in the life of the child than of its parents. This, according to my observations, is a law, or rather mode, of development, which is applicable to all characteristics, and in this way it is possible to explain why the young of later-occurring animals are like the adult stages of those which preceded them in time. If I am not mistaken you have intimated something of this sort also in your first edition, but I have not been able to find it lately. Of course this is a very normal condition of affairs when a series can be followed in this way, beginning with species a, then going through species a b to a b c, then a b d or a c d, and then a d e or simply a e, as it sometimes comes. Very often the acceleration takes place in two closely connected series, thus:

The collections I’ve studied, as you might recall, are fossils gathered without focusing on the very specific subdivisions, like the Lower or Middle Lias classifications made by German authors, especially Quenstedt and Oppel. However, the broader categories in which the species are clearly defined. The state of the collections concerning names was chaotic; localities were mostly accurate, with a few exceptions. To organize this, they were first sorted according to their adult characteristics. When that proved unsatisfactory, I decided to thoroughly test the theory of evolution by tracing the developmental history of each species and placing them within their formations, like Middle or Upper Lias, Oolite, and so on, based on how much they shared characteristics. Thus, an adult with a simple structure, which we’ll call a, had another species that was a in its young stage and became b in the adult stage, placed above it in the zoological series. Through this process, I soon discovered that a, then a b, and a b c, with c representing the adult stage, were frequently observed; however, after passing these two or three stages, it was uncommon to find a species that was a b c in the young stage and then became d in the adult stage. On the other hand, I often found species that were a in the young stage, skipped the b and c stages, and became d while still quite young. Occasionally, though less often, a species would belong to the same series, which was a in its young stage, showing a slight and temporary resemblance to d at a later stage, then immediately transitioning while still quite young to the more advanced characteristics represented by e, maintaining these traits until old age caused them to fade. This skipping is the highest example, or rather manifestation, of acceleration in development. When you refer to the history of diseases and inheritance of traits in your "Origin of Species," you mention the typical manifestation of acceleration, noting how diseases or characteristics tend to appear earlier in the lives of children than in their parents. According to my observations, this is a rule, or rather a mode of development, applicable to all traits, explaining why the young of later-evolving animals resemble the adult stages of those that came before them in time. If I’m not mistaken, you hinted at something similar in your first edition, but I haven’t been able to locate it recently. Of course, this is a very normal situation when a series can be traced like this, starting with species a, then going through species a b to a b c, then a b d or a c d, and finally a d e or simply a e, as it sometimes is. Often, acceleration occurs in two closely related series, as follows:

a—ab—abd—ae—-ad

in which one series goes on very regularly, while another lateral offshoot of a becomes d in the adult. This is an actual case which can be plainly shown with the specimens in hand, and has been verified in the collections here. Retardation is entirely Prof. Cope's idea, but I think also easily traceable. It is the opponent of acceleration, so to speak, or the opposite or negative of that mode of development. Thus series may occur in which, either in size or characteristics, they return to former characteristics; but a better discussion of this point you will find in the little treatise which I send by the same mail as this letter, "On Reversions among the Ammonites."

in which one series progresses consistently, while another side branch of a becomes d in adulthood. This is a real example that can be clearly demonstrated with the specimens available, and it has been confirmed in the collections here. Retardation is entirely Prof. Cope's concept, but I believe it's also easily traceable. It acts as the counterpart to acceleration, or the opposite of that developmental mode. Thus, there may be instances where, either in size or traits, they revert to previous characteristics; however, you'll find a more thorough discussion of this point in the short treatise I’m sending in the same mail as this letter, "On Reversions among the Ammonites."

LETTER 254. TO A. HYATT. Down, December 4th, 1872.

I thank you sincerely for your most interesting letter. You refer much too modestly to your own knowledge and judgment, as you are much better fitted to throw light on your own difficult problems than I am.

I sincerely appreciate your fascinating letter. You’re being way too modest about your own knowledge and judgment; you’re far better at shedding light on your own tough issues than I am.

It has quite annoyed me that I do not clearly understand yours and Prof. Cope's views (254/1. Prof. Cope's views may be gathered from his "Origin of the Fittest" 1887; in this book (page 41) is reprinted his "Origin of Genera" from the "Proc. Philadelph. Acad. Nat. Soc." 1868, which was published separately by the author in 1869, and which we believe to be his first publication on the subject. In the preface to the "Origin of the Fittest," page vi, he sums up the chief points in the "Origin of Genera" under seven heads, of which the following are the most important:—"First, that development of new characters has been accomplished by an ACCELERATION or RETARDATION in the growth of the parts changed...Second, that of EXACT PARALLELISM between the adult of one individual or set of individuals, and a transitional stage of one or more other individuals. This doctrine is distinct from that of an exact parallelism, which had already been stated by von Baer." The last point is less definitely stated by Hyatt in his letter of December 4th, 1872. "I am thus perpetually led to look upon a series very much as upon an individual, and think that I have found that in many instances these afford parallel changes." See also "Lamarck the Founder of Evolution, by A.S. Packard: New York, 1901.) and the fault lies in some slight degree, I think, with Prof. Cope, who does not write very clearly. I think I now understand the terms "acceleration" and "retardation"; but will you grudge the trouble of telling me, by the aid of the following illustration, whether I do understand rightly? When a fresh-water decapod crustacean is born with an almost mature structure, and therefore does not pass, like other decapods, through the Zoea stage, is this not a case of acceleration? Again, if an imaginary decapod retained, when adult, many Zoea characters, would this not be a case of retardation? If these illustrations are correct, I can perceive why I have been so dull in understanding your views. I looked for something else, being familiar with such cases, and classing them in my own mind as simply due to the obliteration of certain larval or embryonic stages. This obliteration I imagined resulted sometimes entirely from that law of inheritance to which you allude; but that it in many cases was aided by Natural Selection, as I inferred from such cases occurring so frequently in terrestrial and fresh-water members of groups, which retain their several embryonic stages in the sea, as long as fitting conditions are present.

I’ve been quite frustrated that I don’t fully grasp your and Prof. Cope's views. Prof. Cope's opinions can be found in his book "Origin of the Fittest" published in 1887; on page 41, he reprints his work "Origin of Genera" from the "Proc. Philadelph. Acad. Nat. Soc." from 1868, which he separately published in 1869. We believe this was his first publication on the topic. In the preface to "Origin of the Fittest," on page vi, he summarizes the main points in "Origin of Genera" under seven headings, with the following being the most significant: “First, the development of new characteristics occurs through an ACCELERATION or RETARDATION in the growth of the changed parts... Second, there is an EXACT PARALLELISM between the adult form of one individual or group and a transitional stage of one or more other individuals. This concept is different from the exact parallelism previously stated by von Baer.” The last point is less clearly articulated by Hyatt in his letter dated December 4th, 1872: “I am constantly led to view a series similarly to how I view an individual, and I believe I have found that in many cases these show parallel changes.” See also "Lamarck the Founder of Evolution" by A.S. Packard: New York, 1901. I think some of the confusion lies with Prof. Cope, who doesn’t write very clearly. I believe I now understand the terms "acceleration" and "retardation," but could you kindly clarify whether I’ve got it right using the following examples? When a freshwater decapod crustacean is born with an almost fully developed structure and skips the Zoea stage, is that an example of acceleration? Also, if an imaginary decapod retains many Zoea characteristics into adulthood, would that be an example of retardation? If my examples are correct, I can see why I’ve struggled to understand your perspectives. I was expecting something different, as I'm familiar with these cases and thought of them as simply due to the loss of certain larval or embryonic stages. I believed that this loss sometimes resulted solely from the law of inheritance that you mention; however, I inferred that Natural Selection often played a role in many cases, given how frequently this occurs in terrestrial and freshwater members of groups that maintain their embryonic stages in the sea as long as suitable conditions exist.

Another cause of my misunderstanding was the assumption that in your series

Another reason for my misunderstanding was the assumption that in your series

a—ab—abd—ae,————ad

the differences between the successive species, expressed by the terminal letter, was due to acceleration: now, if I understand rightly, this is not the case; and such characters must have been independently acquired by some means.

the differences between the successive species, expressed by the terminal letter, were due to acceleration: now, if I understand correctly, this is not the case; and such traits must have been independently acquired by some means.

The two newest and most interesting points in your letter (and in, as far as I think, your former paper) seem to me to be about senile characteristics in one species appearing in succeeding species during maturity; and secondly about certain degraded characters appearing in the last species of a series. You ask for my opinion: I can only send the conjectured impressions which have occurred to me and which are not worth writing. (It ought to be known whether the senile character appears before or after the period of active reproduction.) I should be inclined to attribute the character in both your cases to the laws of growth and descent, secondarily to Natural Selection. It has been an error on my part, and a misfortune to me, that I did not largely discuss what I mean by laws of growth at an early period in some of my books. I have said something on this head in two new chapters in the last edition of the "Origin." I should be happy to send you a copy of this edition, if you do not possess it and care to have it. A man in extreme old age differs much from a young man, and I presume every one would account for this by failing powers of growth. On the other hand the skulls of some mammals go on altering during maturity into advancing years; as do the horns of the stag, the tail-feathers of some birds, the size of fishes etc.; and all such differences I should attribute simply to the laws of growth, as long as full vigour was retained. Endless other changes of structure in successive species may, I believe, be accounted for by various complex laws of growth. Now, any change of character thus induced with advancing years in the individual might easily be inherited at an earlier age than that at which it first supervened, and thus become characteristic of the mature species; or again, such changes would be apt to follow from variation, independently of inheritance, under proper conditions. Therefore I should expect that characters of this kind would often appear in later-formed species without the aid of Natural Selection, or with its aid if the characters were of any advantage. The longer I live, the more I become convinced how ignorant we are of the extent to which all sorts of structures are serviceable to each species. But that characters supervening during maturity in one species should appear so regularly, as you state to be the case, in succeeding species, seems to me very surprising and inexplicable.

The two most recent and compelling points in your letter (and, as far as I can tell, your previous paper) seem to be about aging traits in one species appearing in related species as they mature; and second, about some inferior traits showing up in the final species of a series. You’ve asked for my thoughts: I can only share the speculative impressions I've had, which probably aren't worth writing down. (It should be clarified whether the aging trait appears before or after the active reproduction phase.) I would tend to attribute the trait in both your cases to the laws of growth and descent, and then to Natural Selection as a secondary factor. It’s been a mistake on my part, and a bit of bad luck, that I didn’t discuss what I mean by laws of growth more extensively in some of my earlier works. I've said a little about this in two new chapters in the latest edition of the "Origin." I’d be glad to send you a copy of this edition if you don’t already have it and would like one. A person in very old age is quite different from a young person, and I assume everyone would attribute this to declining growth abilities. On the other hand, the skulls of some mammals continue to change as they get older; the same goes for the antlers of stags, the tail feathers of certain birds, the size of fish, etc.; and I would simply attribute all these differences to the laws of growth, as long as full vitality is maintained. Numerous other structural changes in successive species can likely be explained by various complex growth laws. Now, any changes that happen with age in an individual might easily be passed down earlier than the age at which they first appeared, thereby becoming a common feature of the mature species; or these changes could also arise from variation, regardless of inheritance, under suitable conditions. That’s why I would expect traits like these to frequently show up in newer species without Natural Selection's influence, or with its help if those traits provided any benefits. The longer I live, the more I realize how little we understand about the extent to which various structures are useful to each species. However, the fact that traits emerging during maturity in one species appear so consistently, as you mentioned, in subsequent species seems quite surprising and hard to explain.

With respect to degradation in species towards the close of a series, I have nothing to say, except that before I arrived at the end of your letter, it occurred to me that the earlier and simpler ammonites must have been well adapted to their conditions, and that when the species were verging towards extinction (owing probably to the presence of some more successful competitors) they would naturally become re-adapted to simpler conditions. Before I had read your final remarks I thought also that unfavourable conditions might cause, through the law of growth, aided perhaps by reversion, degradation of character. No doubt many new laws remain to be discovered. Permit me to add that I have never been so foolish as to imagine that I have succeeded in doing more than to lay down some of the broad outlines of the origin of species.

Regarding the decline of species towards the end of a series, I have nothing to add except that before I finished reading your letter, it occurred to me that the earlier and simpler ammonites were likely well-suited to their environment. When the species started to face extinction (probably due to the rise of more successful competitors), it makes sense that they would naturally readapt to simpler conditions. Before I read your final thoughts, I also considered that unfavorable conditions might lead to a degradation of characteristics through the law of growth, perhaps along with reversion. Certainly, many new laws are yet to be discovered. I should mention that I've never been naive enough to think I’ve achieved more than outlining some of the fundamental aspects of the origin of species.

After long reflection I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate tendency to progressive development exists, as is now held by so many able naturalists, and perhaps by yourself. It is curious how seldom writers define what they mean by progressive development; but this is a point which I have briefly discussed in the "Origin." I earnestly hope that you may visit Hilgendorf's famous deposit. Have you seen Weismann's pamphlet "Einfluss der Isolirung," Leipzig, 1872? He makes splendid use of Hilgendorf's admirable observations. (254/2. Hilgendorf, "Monatsb. K. Akad." Berlin, 1866. For a semi-popular account of Hilgendorf's and Hyatt's work on this subject, see Romanes' "Darwin and after Darwin," I., page 201.) I have no strength to spare, being much out of health; otherwise I would have endeavoured to have made this letter better worth sending. I most sincerely wish you success in your valuable and difficult researches.

After thinking it over for a long time, I can't shake the belief that there isn’t any natural tendency for progressive development, despite what many capable naturalists, possibly yourself included, currently think. It's interesting how rarely writers clarify what they mean by progressive development; I've touched on this issue briefly in the "Origin." I really hope you get a chance to visit Hilgendorf's renowned site. Have you seen Weismann's pamphlet "Einfluss der Isolirung," Leipzig, 1872? He makes great use of Hilgendorf's excellent observations. (254/2. Hilgendorf, "Monatsb. K. Akad." Berlin, 1866. For a more general overview of Hilgendorf's and Hyatt's work on this topic, check out Romanes' "Darwin and after Darwin," I., page 201.) I'm feeling pretty unwell and don't have the energy to spare; otherwise, I would have tried to make this letter more worthwhile to send. I genuinely wish you success in your important and challenging research.

I have received, and thank you, for your three pamphlets. As far as I can judge, your views seem very probable; but what a fearfully intricate subject is this of the succession of ammonites. (254/3. See various papers in the publications of the "Boston Soc. Nat. Hist." and in the "Bulletin of the Harvard Museum of Comp. Zoology.")

I have received your three pamphlets, and thank you for them. From what I can see, your views seem quite likely; but what a complicated topic this is regarding the succession of ammonites. (254/3. See various papers in the publications of the "Boston Soc. Nat. Hist." and in the "Bulletin of the Harvard Museum of Comp. Zoology.")

LETTER 255. A. HYATT TO CHARLES DARWIN. Cannstadt bei Stuttgart, December 8th, 1872.

LETTER 255. A. HYATT TO CHARLES DARWIN. Cannstadt near Stuttgart, December 8, 1872.

The quickness and earnestness of your reply to my letter gives me the greatest encouragement, and I am much delighted at the unexpected interest which your questions and comments display. What you say about Prof. Cope's style has been often before said to me, and I have remarked in his writings an unsatisfactory treatment of our common theory. This, I think, perhaps is largely due to the complete absorption of his mind in the contemplation of his subject: this seems to lead him to be careless about the methods in which it may be best explained. He has, however, a more extended knowledge than I have, and has in many ways a more powerful grasp of the subject, and for that very reason, perhaps, is liable to run into extremes. You ask about the skipping of the Zoea stage in fresh-water decapods: is this an illustration of acceleration? It most assuredly is, if acceleration means anything at all. Again, another and more general illustration would be, if, among the marine decapods, a series could be formed in which the Zoea stage became less and less important in the development, and was relegated to younger and younger stages of the development, and finally disappeared in those to which you refer. This is the usual way in which the accelerated mode of development manifests itself; though near the lowest or earliest occurring species it is also to be looked for. Perhaps this to which you allude is an illustration somewhat similar to the one which I have spoken of in my series,

The speed and sincerity of your response to my letter give me great encouragement, and I'm really pleased with the unexpected interest your questions and comments show. What you mention about Prof. Cope's style has often been said to me before, and I’ve noticed in his writings a frustrating approach to our shared theory. I think this is largely because he is so deeply focused on his subject that he tends to overlook the best ways to explain it. However, he has a broader knowledge than I do and has a stronger grasp of the subject in many ways, which may be why he tends to go to extremes. You ask about skipping the Zoea stage in freshwater decapods: is this an example of acceleration? It definitely is, if acceleration means anything at all. Another, more general example would be if, among marine decapods, a series could be formed in which the Zoea stage becomes less significant in development, gets pushed to younger stages, and eventually disappears in the ones you mentioned. This is the usual way that accelerated development shows itself, although it can also be expected near the earliest species. Perhaps what you're referring to is a somewhat similar example to one I've discussed in my series.

a—ab—abc—ae————ad,

which like "a d" comes from the earliest of a series, though I should think from the entire skipping of the Zoea stage that it must be, like "a e," the result of a long line of ancestors. In fact, the essential point of our theory is, that characteristics are ever inherited by the young at earlier periods than they are assumed in due course of growth by the parents, and that this must eventually lead to the extinction or skipping of these characteristics altogether...

which like "a d" comes from the earliest in a series, though I would think that because it completely skips the Zoea stage, it must be, like "a e," the result of a long line of ancestors. In fact, the main point of our theory is that traits are always inherited by the young at earlier stages than they are developed in the parents, and that this will eventually lead to the complete disappearance or skipping of these traits altogether...

Such considerations as these and the fact that near the heads of series or near the latest members of series, and not at the beginning, were usually found the accelerated types, which skipped lower characteristics and developed very suddenly to a higher and more complex standpoint in structure, led both Cope and {myself} into what may be a great error. I see that it has led you at least into the difficulty of which you very rightly complain, and which, I am sorry to see, has cost you some of your valuable time. We presumed that because characteristics were perpetually inherited at earlier stages, that this very concentration of the developed characteristics made room for the production of differences in the adult descendants of any given pair. Further, that in the room thus made other different characteristics must be produced, and that these would necessarily appear earlier in proportion as the species was more or less accelerated, and be greater or less in the same proportion. Finally, that in the most accelerated, such as "a c" or "a d," the difference would be so great as to constitute distinct genera. Cope and I have differed very much, while he acknowledged the action of the accumulated mode of development only when generic characteristics or greater differences were produced, I saw the same mode of development to be applicable in all cases and to all characteristics, even to diseases. So far the facts bore us out, but when we assumed that the adult differences were the result of the accelerated mode of development, we were perhaps upon rather insecure ground. It is evidently this assumption which has led you to misunderstand the theory. Cope founded his belief, that the adult characteristics were also the result of acceleration, if I rightly remember it, mainly upon the class of facts spoken of above in man where a sudden change into two organs may produce entirely new and unexpected differences in the whole organisation, and upon the changes which acceleration appeared to produce in the development of each succeeding species. Your difficulty in understanding the theory and the observations you have made show me at once what my own difficulties have been, but of these I will not speak at present, as my letter is spinning itself out to a fearful length.

Such considerations, along with the fact that accelerated types are usually found near the ends of series or among the latest members and not at the beginning, led both Cope and me into what might be a significant mistake. I can see that it has put you in the difficult situation you rightly complain about, which has unfortunately cost you some valuable time. We assumed that because traits were constantly inherited at earlier stages, this concentration of developed traits left space for differences in the adult offspring of any given pair. Furthermore, we thought that in this space, other different traits would arise, appearing earlier in proportion to how accelerated the species was, and being greater or lesser in the same proportion. Ultimately, we believed that in the most accelerated cases, like "a c" or "a d," the differences would be so significant they would create distinct genera. Cope and I had a lot of disagreements; while he accepted that the accumulated mode of development only applies when generic characteristics or greater differences emerge, I believed the same mode applied to all cases and to all traits, even diseases. So far, the facts supported us, but when we assumed that adult differences resulted from the accelerated development mode, we were perhaps on shaky ground. This assumption is clearly what has led you to misunderstand the theory. If I remember correctly, Cope's belief that adult characteristics also resulted from acceleration was based mainly on the type of facts mentioned above regarding humans, where a sudden change into two organs can create entirely new and unexpected differences in the entire organism, and on the changes that acceleration seemed to cause in the development of each succeeding species. Your difficulty in understanding the theory and your observations reveal to me my own challenges, but I won’t address those right now, as my letter is becoming quite lengthy.

(255/1. After speaking of Cope's comparison of acceleration and retardation in evolution to the force of gravity in physical matters Mr. Hyatt goes on:—)

(255/1. After discussing Cope's comparison of acceleration and retardation in evolution to the force of gravity in physical matters, Mr. Hyatt continues:)

Now it {acceleration} seems to me to explain less and less the origin of adult progressive characteristics or simply differences, and perhaps now I shall get on faster with my work.

Now it {acceleration} seems to explain less and less about the origin of adult progressive traits or just differences, and maybe now I'll be able to work faster.

LETTER 256. TO A. HYATT. Down, December 14th {1872}.

(256/1. In reply to the above letter (255) from Mr. Hyatt.)

(256/1. In response to the letter above (255) from Mr. Hyatt.)

Notwithstanding the kind consideration shown in your last sentence, I must thank you for your interesting and clearly expressed letter. I have directed my publisher to send you a copy of the last edition of the "Origin," and you can, if you like, paste in the "From the Author" on next page. In relation to yours and Professor Cope's view on "acceleration" causing a development of new characters, it would, I think, be well if you were to compare the decapods which pass and do not pass through the Zoea stage, and the one group which does (according to Fritz Muller) pass through to the still earlier Nauplius stages, and see if they present any marked differences. You will, I believe, find that this is not the case. I wish it were, for I have often been perplexed at the omission of embryonic stages as well as the acquirement of peculiar stages appearing to produce no special result in the mature form.

Despite the kind consideration in your last sentence, I want to thank you for your interesting and clearly written letter. I've asked my publisher to send you a copy of the latest edition of the "Origin," and you can, if you’d like, paste in the "From the Author" on the next page. Regarding your and Professor Cope's opinion on "acceleration" leading to the development of new traits, I think it would be beneficial for you to compare the decapods that do and don’t go through the Zoea stage, along with the one group that does (according to Fritz Muller) pass through the even earlier Nauplius stages, and see if there are any significant differences. I believe you’ll find that there aren’t. I wish there were, because I have often been puzzled by the absence of embryonic stages as well as the emergence of unique stages that seem to lead to no special outcome in the adult form.

(256/2. The remainder of this letter is missing, and the whole of the last sentence is somewhat uncertainly deciphered. (Note by Mr. Hyatt.))

(256/2. The rest of this letter is missing, and the entire last sentence is a bit unclear. (Note by Mr. Hyatt.))

LETTER 257. TO A. HYATT. Down, February 13th, 1877.

I thank you for your very kind, long, and interesting letter. The case is so wonderful and difficult that I dare not express any opinion on it. Of course, I regret that Hilgendorf has been proved to be so greatly in error (257/1. This refers to a controversy with Sandberger, who had attacked Hilgendorf in the "Verh. der phys.-med. Ges. zu Wurzburg," Bd. V., and in the "Jahrb. der Malakol. Ges." Bd. I., to which Hilgendorf replied in the "Zeitschr. d. Deutschen geolog. Ges." Jahrb. 1877. Hyatt's name occurs in Hilgendorf's pages, but we find no reference to any paper of this date; his well-known paper is in the "Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist." 1880. In a letter to Darwin (May 23rd, 1881) Hyatt regrets that he had no opportunity of a third visit to Steinheim, and goes on: "I should then have done greater justice to Hilgendorf, for whom I have such a high respect."), but it is some selfish comfort to me that I always felt so much misgiving that I never quoted his paper. (257/2. In the fifth edition of the "Origin" (page 362), however, Darwin speaks of the graduated forms of Planorbis multiformis, described by Hilgendorf from certain beds in Switzerland, by which we presume he meant the Steinheim beds in Wurtemberg.) The variability of these shells is quite astonishing, and seems to exceed that of Rubus or Hieracium amongst plants. The result which surprises me most is that the same form should be developed from various and different progenitors. This seems to show how potent are the conditions of life, irrespectively of the variations being in any way beneficial.

Thank you for your kind, lengthy, and interesting letter. The situation is so remarkable and complex that I hesitate to express any opinion on it. Of course, I regret that Hilgendorf has been shown to be so significantly mistaken, but it’s somewhat comforting to me that I always had doubts about his work and never quoted his paper. The variability of these shells is truly astonishing and appears to surpass that of Rubus or Hieracium among plants. The result that surprises me the most is that the same form can develop from various and different ancestors. This seems to demonstrate how powerful the conditions of life are, regardless of whether the variations are beneficial in any way.

The production of a species out of a chaos of varying forms reminds me of Nageli's conclusion, as deduced from the study of Hieracium, that this is the common mode in which species arise. But I still continue to doubt much on this head, and cling to the belief expressed in the first edition of the "Origin," that protean or polymorphic species are those which are now varying in such a manner that the variations are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous. I am glad to hear of the Brunswick deposit, as I feel sure that the careful study of such cases is highly important. I hope that the Smithsonian Institution will publish your memoir.

The emergence of a species from a mix of different forms reminds me of Nageli's conclusion, drawn from his study of Hieracium, that this is the typical way species come about. However, I still have my doubts about this and hold onto the belief I expressed in the first edition of the "Origin," that adaptable or polymorphic species are currently changing in a way that neither benefits nor harms them. I'm pleased to hear about the Brunswick deposit, as I believe that thoroughly examining such cases is very important. I hope the Smithsonian Institution publishes your memoir.

LETTER 258. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 18th {1873}.

It was very good of you to give up so much of your time to write to me your last interesting letter. The evidence seems good about the tameness of the alpine butterflies, and the fact seems to me very surprising, for each butterfly can hardly have acquired its experience during its own short life. Will you be so good as to thank M. Humbert for his note, which I have been glad to read. I formerly received from a man, not a naturalist, staying at Cannes a similar account, but doubted about believing it. The case, however, does not answer my query—viz., whether butterflies are attracted by bright colours, independently of the supposed presence of nectar?

It was really nice of you to spend so much time writing your last interesting letter to me. The evidence about the tameness of the alpine butterflies seems solid, and I find it quite surprising, since each butterfly probably can't have gained its experience in such a short lifespan. Could you please thank M. Humbert for his note? I enjoyed reading it. I once received a similar account from a guy, not a naturalist, who was staying in Cannes, but I was skeptical about believing it. However, this case doesn’t answer my question—specifically, whether butterflies are drawn to bright colors, regardless of the assumed presence of nectar?

I must own that I have great difficulty in believing that any temporary condition of the parents can affect the offspring. If it last long enough to affect the health or structure of the parents, I can quite believe the offspring would be modified. But how mysterious a subject is that of generation! Although my hypothesis of pangenesis has been reviled on all sides, yet I must still look at generation under this point of view; and it makes me very averse to believe in an emotion having any effect on the offspring. Allow me to add one word about blushing and shyness: I intended only to say the habit was primordially acquired by attention to the face, and not that each shy man now attended to his personal appearance.

I have to admit that I find it hard to believe that any temporary condition of the parents can impact the offspring. If it lasts long enough to affect the health or physical traits of the parents, I can definitely see how the offspring would be changed. But what a mysterious topic generation is! Even though my idea of pangenesis has been criticized from all sides, I still view generation this way; it makes me really reluctant to believe that an emotion could influence the offspring. Let me add a quick word about blushing and shyness: I only meant to say that the habit was originally acquired by paying attention to the face, not that each shy person now focuses on their appearance.

LETTER 259. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 28th, 1873.

I write a line to wish you good-bye, as I hear you are off on Wednesday, and to thank you for the Dionoea, but I cannot make the little creature grow well. I have this day read Bentham's last address, and must express my admiration of it. (259/1. Presidential address to the Linnean Society, read May 24th, 1873.) Perhaps I ought not to do so, as he fairly crushes me with honour.

I’m writing to say goodbye since I hear you’re leaving on Wednesday, and to thank you for the Dionaea, but I can’t seem to get the little plant to thrive. Today, I read Bentham's latest address, and I have to say I admire it. (259/1. Presidential address to the Linnean Society, read May 24th, 1873.) Maybe I shouldn’t say that since it makes me feel so unworthy.

I am delighted to see how exactly I agree with him on affinities, and especially on extinct forms as illustrated by his flat-topped tree. (259/2. See page 15 of separate copy: "We should then have the present races represented by the countless branchlets forming the flat-topped summit" of a genealogical tree, in which "all we can do is to map out the summit as it were from a bird's-eye view, and under each cluster, or cluster of clusters, to place as the common trunk an imaginary type of a genus, order, or class according to the depth to which we would go.") My recent work leads me to differ from him on one point—viz., on the separation of the sexes. (259/3. On the question of sexuality, see page 10 of Bentham's address. On the back of Mr. Darwin's copy he has written: "As long as lowest organisms free—sexes separated: as soon as they become attached, to prevent sterility sexes united—reseparated as means of fertilisation, adapted {?} for distant {?} organisms,—in the case of animals by their senses and voluntary movements,—with plants the aid of insects and wind, the latter always existed, and long retained." The two words marked {?} are doubtful. The introduction of freedom or attachedness, as a factor in the problem also occurs in "Cross and Self-fertilisation," page 462. I strongly suspect that sexes were primordially in distinct individuals; then became commonly united in the same individual, and then in a host of animals and some few plants became again separated. Do ask Bentham to send a copy of his address to "Dr. H. Muller, Lippstadt, Prussia," as I am sure it will please him GREATLY.

I’m really happy to see how much I agree with him on connections, especially on extinct forms as shown by his flat-topped tree. (259/2. See page 15 of the separate copy: “We should then have the present races represented by the countless branchlets forming the flat-topped summit” of a genealogical tree, in which “all we can do is to map out the summit, as it were, from a bird's-eye view, and under each cluster, or cluster of clusters, to place as the common trunk an imaginary type of a genus, order, or class according to how deep we want to go.”) My recent work makes me differ from him on one point—specifically about the separation of the sexes. (259/3. On the question of sexuality, see page 10 of Bentham's address. On the back of Mr. Darwin's copy, he has written: “As long as the lowest organisms are free—sexes separated: as soon as they become attached, to prevent sterility, sexes united—then re-separated as a means of fertilization, adapted for distant organisms,—in the case of animals by their senses and voluntary movements,—with plants the aid of insects and wind, the latter always existed, and long retained.” The two words marked {?} are uncertain. The introduction of freedom or attachment as a factor in the problem also appears in “Cross and Self-fertilisation,” page 462. I strongly suspect that sexes were originally in distinct individuals; then became commonly united in the same individual, and then in a variety of animals and a few plants became separated again. Please ask Bentham to send a copy of his address to “Dr. H. Muller, Lippstadt, Prussia,” as I’m sure it will make him VERY happy.

...When in France write me a line and tell me how you get on, and how Huxley is; but do not do so if you feel idle, and writing bothers you.

...When you’re in France, drop me a quick note and let me know how things are going and how Huxley is doing; but only if you're up for it—don’t feel obligated if you’re feeling lazy and writing seems like a hassle.

LETTER 260. TO R. MELDOLA.

(260/1. This letter, with others from Darwin to Meldola, is published in "Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection," by E.B. Poulton, pages 199 et seq., London, 1896.)

(260/1. This letter, along with others from Darwin to Meldola, is published in "Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection," by E.B. Poulton, pages 199 and following, London, 1896.)

Southampton, August 13th, 1873.

Southampton, August 13, 1873.

I am much obliged for your present, which no doubt I shall find at Down on my return home. I am sorry to say that I cannot answer your question; nor do I believe that you could find it anywhere even approximately answered. It is very difficult or impossible to define what is meant by a large variation. Such graduate into monstrosities or generally injurious variations. I do not myself believe that these are often or ever taken advantage of under nature. It is a common occurrence that abrupt and considerable variations are transmitted in an unaltered state, or not at all transmitted, to the offspring, or to some of them. So it is with tailless or hornless animals, and with sudden and great changes of colour in flowers. I wish I could have given you any answer.

I really appreciate your gift, and I’m sure I’ll find it at Down when I get back home. I regret to say that I can’t answer your question; in fact, I doubt you’d find it answered anywhere even close to what you’re looking for. It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to define what a large variation means. These often lead to extremes or variations that are generally harmful. I personally don’t think these variations are usually, or ever, utilized in nature. It’s quite common for sudden and significant variations to be passed down unchanged, or not passed down at all, to the offspring, or some of them. This applies to tailless or hornless animals, as well as to sudden and dramatic color changes in flowers. I wish I could have provided you with an answer.

LETTER 261. TO E.S. MORSE. {Undated.}

I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your kindness in sending me your essay on the Brachiopoda. (261/1. "The Brachiopoda, a Division of Annelida," "Amer. Assoc. Proc." Volume XIX., page 272, 1870, and "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume VI., page 267, 1870.) I have just read it with the greatest interest, and you seem to me (though I am not a competent judge) to make out with remarkable clearness an extremely strong case. What a wonderful change it is to an old naturalist to have to look at these "shells" as "worms"; but, as you truly say, as far as external appearance is concerned, the case is not more wonderful than that of cirripedes. I have also been particularly interested by your remarks on the Geological Record, and on the lower and older forms in each great class not having been probably protected by calcareous valves or a shell.

I want to take a moment to thank you for your kindness in sending me your essay on the Brachiopoda. (261/1. "The Brachiopoda, a Division of Annelida," "Amer. Assoc. Proc." Volume XIX., page 272, 1870, and "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume VI., page 267, 1870.) I just read it with great interest, and while I’m not an expert, I believe you clearly present an incredibly strong case. It’s quite amazing for an old naturalist like me to start seeing these "shells" as "worms"; but, as you rightly point out, in terms of external appearance, it’s not much more surprising than the case of cirripedes. I've also found your comments on the Geological Record and the idea that the lower and older forms in each major class probably didn’t have protective calcareous valves or shells particularly intriguing.

P.S.—Your woodcut of Lingula is most skilfully introduced to compel one to see its likeness to an annelid.

P.S.—Your woodcut of Lingula is brilliantly done and really makes you see its resemblance to an annelid.

LETTER 262. TO H. SPENCER.

(262/1. Mr. Spencer's book "The Study of Sociology," 1873, was published in the "Contemporary Review" in instalments between May 1872 and October 1873.)

(262/1. Mr. Spencer's book "The Study of Sociology," 1873, was published in the "Contemporary Review" in installments between May 1872 and October 1873.)

October 31st {1873}.

October 31, 1873.

I am glad to receive to-day an advertisement of your book. I have been wonderfully interested by the articles in the "Contemporary." Those were splendid hits about the Prince of Wales and Gladstone. (262/2. See "The Study of Sociology," page 392. Mr. Gladstone, in protest against some words of Mr. Spencer, had said that the appearance of great men "in great crises of human history" were events so striking "that men would be liable to term them providential in a pre-scientific age." On this Mr. Spencer remarks that "in common with the ancient Greek Mr. Gladstone regards as irreligious any explanation of Nature which dispenses with immediate Divine superintendence." And as an instance of the partnership "between the ideas of natural causation and of providential interference," he instances a case where a prince "gained popularity by outliving certain abnormal changes in his blood," and where "on the occasion of his recovery providential aid and natural causation were unitedly recognised by a thanksgiving to God and a baronetcy to the doctor." The passage on Toryism is on page 395, where Mr. Spencer, with his accustomed tolerance, writes: "The desirable thing is that a growth of ideas and feelings tending to produce modification shall be joined with a continuance of ideas and feelings tending to preserve stability." And from this point of view he concludes it to be very desirable that "one in Mr. Gladstone's position should think as he does." The matter is further discussed in the notes to Chapter XVI., page 423.) I never before read a good defence of Toryism. In one place (but I cannot for the life of me recollect where or what it exactly was) I thought that you would have profited by my principle (i.e. if you do not reject it) given in my "Descent of Man," that new characters which appear late in life are those which are transmitted to the same sex alone. I have advanced some pretty strong evidence, and the principle is of great importance in relation to secondary sexual likenesses. (262/3. This refers to Mr. Spencer's discussion of the evolution of the mental traits characteristic of women. At page 377 he points out the importance of the limitation of heredity by sex in this relation. A striking generalisation on this question is given in the "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., page 285: that when the adult male differs from the adult female, he differs in the same way from the young of both sexes. Can this law be applied in the case in which the adult female possesses characters not possessed by the male: for instance, the high degree of intuitive power of reading the mental states of others and of concealing her own—characters which Mr. Spencer shows to be accounted for by the relations between the husband and wife in a state of savagery. If so, the man should resemble "the young of both sexes" in the absence of these special qualities. This seems to be the case with some masculine characteristics, and childishness of man is not without recognition among women: for instance, by Dolly Winthrop in "Silas Marner," who is content with bread for herself, but bakes cake for children and men, whose "stomichs are made so comical, they want a change—they do, I know, God help 'em.") I have applied it to man and woman, and possibly it was here that I thought that you would have profited by the doctrine. I fear that this note will be almost illegible, but I am very tired.

I’m happy to get an advertisement for your book today. I've been really interested in the articles in the "Contemporary." Those were great observations about the Prince of Wales and Gladstone. (262/2. See "The Study of Sociology," page 392. Mr. Gladstone, in reaction to some comments from Mr. Spencer, said that the appearances of great figures "in great crises of human history" are so striking that people might label them as providential in a pre-scientific age. Mr. Spencer responds to this by noting that "like the ancient Greeks, Mr. Gladstone considers any explanation of Nature that doesn't include direct Divine oversight to be irreligious." He gives an example of the relationship between "natural causation and providential interference," mentioning a case where a prince "gained popularity by surviving certain unusual changes in his blood," and where "when he recovered, both divine help and natural causation were recognized together with a thanksgiving to God and a baronetcy for the doctor." The passage on Toryism can be found on page 395, where Mr. Spencer, with his usual tolerance, writes: "What's desirable is for a growth of ideas and feelings that lead to change to coexist with ideas and feelings that aim to maintain stability." From this perspective, he concludes that it’s very beneficial for "someone in Mr. Gladstone's position to think as he does." This topic is discussed further in the notes to Chapter XVI., page 423.) I’ve never read a solid defense of Toryism before. At one point (though I can’t remember exactly where), I thought you could have gained from my principle (that is, if you accept it) presented in my "Descent of Man," which argues that new characteristics that emerge late in life are transmitted to the same sex only. I’ve provided some pretty strong evidence, and this principle is really important regarding secondary sexual traits. (262/3. This refers to Mr. Spencer's discussion of the evolution of mental traits that characterize women. On page 377, he highlights the significance of limiting heredity by sex in this context. A notable generalization on this topic is offered in "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., page 285: that when adult males differ from adult females, they also differ in the same way from the young of both sexes. Can this rule apply when the adult female has characteristics not shared by the male? For example, the high level of intuitive ability to read others' mental states and conceal her own—traits that Mr. Spencer attributes to the relationship between husband and wife in a primitive state. If that’s the case, the man should resemble "the young of both sexes" in lacking these unique qualities. It seems some masculine traits reflect this, and men's childishness isn’t unnoticed by women; for instance, Dolly Winthrop in "Silas Marner," who is satisfied with bread for herself but bakes cakes for children and men, whose "stomachs are so comical, they want a change—they do, I know, God help 'em.") I've applied this idea to men and women, and maybe this is where I thought you would benefit from the doctrine. I’m afraid this note might be nearly unreadable, but I’m really tired.

LETTER 263. G.J. ROMANES TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(263/1. This is, we believe, the first letter addressed by the late Mr. Romanes to Mr. Darwin. It was put away with another on the same subject, and inscribed "Romanes on Abortion, with my answer (very important)." Mr. Darwin's answer given below is printed from his rough draft, which is in places barely decipherable. On the subject of these letters consult Romanes, "Darwin and after Darwin," Volume II., page 99, 1895.)

(263/1. We believe this is the first letter from the late Mr. Romanes to Mr. Darwin. It was stored away with another letter on the same topic, labeled "Romanes on Abortion, with my answer (very important)." Mr. Darwin's reply below is printed from his rough draft, which is sometimes hard to read. For more on these letters, refer to Romanes, "Darwin and after Darwin," Volume II., page 99, 1895.)

Dunskaith, Parkhill, Ross-shire, July 10th, 1874.

Dunskaith, Parkhill, Ross-shire, July 10, 1874.

Knowing that you do not dissuade the more attentive of your readers from communicating directly to yourself any ideas they may have upon subjects connected with your writings, I take the liberty of sending the enclosed copy of a letter, which I have recently addressed to Mr. Herbert Spencer. You will perceive that the subject dealt with is the same as that to which a letter of mine in last week's "Nature" {July 2nd, page 164} refers—viz., "Disuse as a Reducing Cause in Species." In submitting this more detailed exposition of my views to your consideration, I should like to state again what I stated in "Nature" some weeks ago, viz., that in propounding the cessation of selection as a reducing cause, I do not suppose that I am suggesting anything which has not occurred to you already. Not only is this principle embodied in the theory set forth in the article on Rudimentary Organs ("Nature," Volume IX.); but it is more than once hinted at in the "Origin," in the passages where rudimentary organs are said to be more variable than others, because no longer under the restraining influence of Natural Selection. And still more distinctly is this principle recognised in page 120.

Knowing that you don’t discourage your more engaged readers from reaching out to you with any ideas related to your writings, I’m taking the liberty of sending the attached copy of a letter I recently wrote to Mr. Herbert Spencer. You’ll notice that the topic discussed is the same as the one I mentioned in my letter in last week's "Nature" {July 2nd, page 164}—specifically, "Disuse as a Reducing Cause in Species." As I present this more detailed explanation of my views for your consideration, I want to reiterate what I mentioned in "Nature" a few weeks ago: when I propose that the cessation of selection acts as a reducing cause, I don’t think I’m bringing up anything you haven’t already considered. This principle is not only included in the theory presented in the article on Rudimentary Organs ("Nature," Volume IX.); but it’s also hinted at multiple times in the "Origin," where it’s stated that rudimentary organs are more variable than others because they’re no longer affected by the constraints of Natural Selection. This principle is recognized even more clearly on page 120.

Thus, in sending you the enclosed letter, I do not imagine that I am bringing any novel suggestions under your notice. As I see that you have already applied the principle in question to the case of artificially-bred structures, I cannot but infer that you have pondered it in connection with naturally-bred structures. What objection, however, you can have seen to this principle in this latter connection, I am unable to divine; and so I think the best course for me to pursue is the one I adopt—viz., to send you my considerations in full.

So, by sending you the enclosed letter, I don't think I'm presenting any new ideas for you to consider. I see that you have already applied the principle in question to artificially bred structures, so I can only assume you've thought about it in relation to naturally occurring structures as well. However, I can’t figure out what objections you might have about this principle in that context; therefore, I believe the best approach is for me to share my thoughts in detail.

In the absence of express information, the most natural inference is that the reason you refuse to entertain the principle in question, is because you show the backward tendency of indiscriminate variability {to be} inadequate to contend with the conservative tendency of long inheritance. The converse of this is expressed in the words "That the struggle between Natural Selection on the one hand, and the tendency to reversion and variability on the other hand, will in the course of time cease; and that the most abnormally developed organs may be made constant, I see no reason to doubt" ("Origin," page 121). Certainly not, if, as I doubt not, the word "constant" is intended to bear a relative signification; but to say that constancy can ever become absolute—i.e., that any term of inheritance could secure to an organ a total immunity from the smallest amount of spontaneous variability—to say this would be unwarrantable. Suppose, for instance, that for some reason or other a further increase in the size of a bat's wing should now suddenly become highly beneficial to that animal: we can scarcely suppose that variations would not be forthcoming for Natural Selection to seize upon (unless the limit of possible size has now been reached, which is an altogether distinct matter). And if we suppose that minute variations on the side of increase are thus even now occasionally taking place, much more is it probable that similar variations on the side of decrease are now taking place—i.e., that if the conservative influence of Natural Selection were removed for a long period of time, more variations would ensue below the present size of bat's wings, than above it. To this it may be added, that when the influence of "speedy selection" is removed, it seems in itself highly probable that the structure would, for this reason, become more variable, for the only reason why it ever ceased to be variable (i.e., after attaining its maximum size), was because of the influence of selection constantly destroying those individuals in which a tendency to vary occurred. When, therefore, this force antagonistic to variability was removed, it seems highly probable that the latter principle would again begin to assert itself, and this in a cumulative manner. Those individuals in which a tendency to vary occurred being no longer cut off, they would have as good a chance of leaving progeny to inherit their fluctuating disposition as would their more inflexible companions.

In the absence of clear information, the most reasonable conclusion is that your refusal to consider the principle in question stems from showing that the random variability tendency is inadequate to compete with the stable influence of long-term inheritance. The opposite of this is captured in the statement, "The struggle between Natural Selection on one side and the tendency to revert and vary on the other will eventually stop; and that the most unusually developed organs may become stable, I have no doubt" ("Origin," page 121). Certainly, if, as I believe, the term "stable" is meant to be understood relatively; but to claim that stability can ever be absolute—i.e., that any aspect of inheritance could guarantee an organ complete protection from even the slightest spontaneous variability—that would be unjustified. For example, suppose that, for some reason, a sudden increase in the size of a bat's wing becomes very advantageous for that animal: it's hard to believe that variations wouldn't emerge for Natural Selection to act upon (unless we've already reached the limits of possible size, which is a separate issue). And if we assume that tiny variations in size are occasionally happening now, it's even more likely that similar variations in size reduction are occurring—meaning, if the conservative influence of Natural Selection was absent for a long time, we would see more variations in bat wing sizes decreasing from the current size rather than increasing. Additionally, when the pressure of "rapid selection" is lifted, it seems highly likely that the structure would become more variable again, because the only reason it ever stopped being variable (after reaching its maximum size) was due to the influence of selection constantly eliminating individuals that showed a tendency to vary. So, when this opposing force to variability is removed, it seems very likely that variability would start to reassert itself in a cumulative way. Individuals that tend to vary would no longer be eliminated and would have as good a chance of producing offspring to inherit their fluctuating traits as their more rigid counterparts.

LETTER 264. TO G.J. ROMANES. July 16th, 1874.

LETTER 264. TO G.J. ROMANES. July 16, 1874.

I am much obliged for your kind and long communication, which I have read with great interest, as well as your articles in "Nature." The subject seems to me as important and interesting as it is difficult. I am much out of health, and working very hard on a very different subject, so thus I cannot give your remarks the attention which they deserve. I will, however, keep your letter for some later time, when I may again take up the subject. Your letter makes it clearer to me than it ever was before, how a part or organ which has already begun from any cause to decrease, will go on decreasing through so-called spontaneous variability, with intercrossing; for under such circumstances it is very unlikely that there should be variation in the direction of increase beyond the average size, and no reason why there should not be variations of decrease. I think this expresses your view. I had intended this summer subjecting plants to {illegible} conditions, and observing the effects on variation; but the work would be very laborious, yet I am inclined to think it will be hereafter worth the labour.

I really appreciate your thoughtful and lengthy message, which I read with great interest, as well as your articles in "Nature." The topic seems as significant and engaging as it is challenging. I'm not in great health and am working very hard on a completely different subject, so I can't give your comments the attention they deserve right now. However, I’ll hold onto your letter for a later time when I can revisit the topic. Your letter clarifies for me more than ever before how a part or organ that has already started to decrease for any reason will continue to decline through what’s called spontaneous variability, with intercrossing; because in such cases, it’s very unlikely that there will be variations that lead to an increase beyond the average size, and there’s no reason why there shouldn't be variations that lead to further decrease. I believe this captures your perspective. I had planned to expose plants to {illegible} conditions this summer and observe the effects on variation; but the work would be quite labor-intensive, yet I’m inclined to think it will be worth the effort in the future.

LETTER 265. TO T. MEEHAN. Down, October 9th, 1874.

I am glad that you are attending to the colours of dioecious flowers; but it is well to remember that their colours may be as unimportant to them as those of a gall, or, indeed, as the colour of an amethyst or ruby is to these gems. Some thirty years ago I began to investigate the little purple flowers in the centre of the umbels of the carrot. I suppose my memory is wrong, but it tells me that these flowers are female, and I think that I once got a seed from one of them; but my memory may be quite wrong. I hope that you will continue your interesting researches.

I’m glad you’re looking into the colors of dioecious flowers; however, it's important to remember that their colors might be just as insignificant to them as the color of a gall or even the color of an amethyst or ruby is to those gems. About thirty years ago, I started studying the small purple flowers in the center of the carrot's umbels. My memory might be faulty, but I believe those flowers are female, and I think I once collected a seed from one of them; though I might be completely mistaken. I hope you keep up your fascinating research.

LETTER 266. TO G. JAGER. Down, February 3rd, 1875.

LETTER 266. TO G. JAGER. Down, February 3, 1875.

I received this morning a copy of your work "Contra Wigand," either from yourself or from your publisher, and I am greatly obliged for it. (266/1. Jager's "In Sachen Darwins insbesondere contra Wigand" (Stuttgart, 1874) is directed against A. Wigand's "Der Darwinismus und die Naturforschung Newtons und Cuviers" (Brunswick, 1874).) I had, however, before bought a copy, and have sent the new one to our best library, that of the Royal Society. As I am a very poor german scholar, I have as yet read only about forty pages; but these have interested me in the highest degree. Your remarks on fixed and variable species deserve the greatest attention; but I am not at present quite convinced that there are such independent of the conditions to which they are subjected. I think you have done great service to the principle of evolution, which we both support, by publishing this work. I am the more glad to read it as I had not time to read Wigand's great and tedious volume.

I received a copy of your work "Contra Wigand" this morning, either from you or your publisher, and I’m really grateful for it. (266/1. Jager's "In Sachen Darwins insbesondere contra Wigand" (Stuttgart, 1874) is directed against A. Wigand's "Der Darwinismus und die Naturforschung Newtons und Cuviers" (Brunswick, 1874).) However, I had already purchased a copy and have sent the new one to our top library, the Royal Society. Since I’m not a very skilled German scholar, I’ve only read about forty pages so far, but they’ve captivated me greatly. Your comments on fixed and variable species deserve significant attention, but I’m not fully convinced yet that such species exist independently of the conditions they’re in. I believe you’ve made a valuable contribution to the principle of evolution, which we both endorse, by publishing this work. I’m especially glad to read it since I didn’t have the time to go through Wigand's lengthy and tedious volume.

LETTER 267. TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT. Down, March 13th, 1875.

I write to-day so that there shall be no delay this time in thanking you for your interesting and long letter received this morning. I am sure that you will excuse brevity when I tell you that I am half-killing myself in trying to get a book ready for the press. (267/1. The MS. of "Insectivorous Plants" was got ready for press in March, 1875. Darwin seems to have been more than usually oppressed by the work.) I quite agree with what you say about advantages of various degrees of importance being co-selected (267/2. Mr. Chauncey Wright wrote (February 24th, 1875): "The inquiry as to which of several real uses is the one through which Natural Selection has acted...has for several years seemed to me a somewhat less important question than it seemed formerly, and still appears to most thinkers on the subject...The uses of the rattling of the rattlesnake as a protection by warning its enemies and as a sexual call are not rival uses; neither are the high-reaching and the far-seeing uses of the giraffe's neck 'rivals.'"), and aided by the effects of use, etc. The subject seems to me well worth further development. I do not think I have anywhere noticed the use of the eyebrows, but have long known that they protected the eyes from sweat. During the voyage of the "Beagle" one of the men ascended a lofty hill during a very hot day. He had small eyebrows, and his eyes became fearfully inflamed from the sweat running into them. The Portuguese inhabitants were familiar with this evil. I think you allude to the transverse furrows on the forehead as a protection against sweat; but remember that these incessantly appear on the foreheads of baboons.

I’m writing today so that there’s no delay this time in thanking you for your interesting and lengthy letter I received this morning. I’m sure you’ll forgive me for being brief when I say that I’m exhausting myself trying to get a book ready for printing. (267/1. The manuscript of "Insectivorous Plants" was prepared for printing in March 1875. Darwin seems to have been particularly overwhelmed by the work.) I completely agree with what you mention about the advantages of various importance being co-selected (267/2. Mr. Chauncey Wright wrote (February 24th, 1875): "The question of which of several real uses is the one through which Natural Selection has acted...has seemed to me somewhat less important than it did before, and still appears to most thinkers on the subject...The functions of the rattling of the rattlesnake as both a warning to its enemies and a sexual call aren’t competing uses; nor are the high-reaching and far-seeing functions of the giraffe's neck 'rivals.'"), and aided by the effects of use, etc. I think the topic is definitely worth further exploration. I don’t believe I’ve ever noted the function of eyebrows, but I’ve long known they protect the eyes from sweat. During the voyage of the "Beagle," one of the crew climbed a high hill on a very hot day. He had short eyebrows, and his eyes became severely inflamed from sweat running into them. The local Portuguese people were familiar with this problem. I think you reference the transverse furrows on the forehead as a protection against sweat; but keep in mind that these appear constantly on the foreheads of baboons.

P.S.—I have been greatly pleased by the notices in the "Nation."

P.S.—I've been really happy with the reviews in the "Nation."

LETTER 268. TO A. WEISMANN. Down, May 1st, 1875.

I did not receive your essay for some days after your very kind letter, and I read german so slowly that I have only just finished it. (268/1. "Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie" I. "Ueber den Saison-Dimorphismus," 1875. The fact was previously known that two forms of the genus Vanessa which had been considered to be distinct species are only SEASONAL forms of the same species—one appearing in spring, the other in summer. This remarkable relationship forms the subject of the essay.) Your work has interested me greatly, and your conclusions seem well established. I have long felt much curiosity about season-dimorphism, but never could form any theory on the subject. Undoubtedly your view is very important, as bearing on the general question of variability. When I wrote the "Origin" I could not find any facts which proved the direct action of climate and other external conditions. I long ago thought that the time would soon come when the causes of variation would be fully discussed, and no one has done so much as you in this important subject. The recent evidence of the difference between birds of the same species in the N. and S. United States well shows the power of climate. The two sexes of some few birds are there differently modified by climate, and I have introduced this fact in the last edition of my "Descent of Man." (268/2. "Descent of Man," Edition II. (in one volume), page 423. Allen showed that many species of birds are more strongly coloured in the south of the United States, and that sometimes one sex is more affected than the other. It is this last point that bears on Weismann's remarks (loc. cit., pages 44, 45) on Pieris napi. The males of the alpine-boreal form bryoniae hardly differ from those of the German form (var. vernalis), while the females are strikingly different. Thus the character of secondary sexual differences is determined by climate.) I am, therefore, fully prepared to admit the justness of your criticism on sexual selection of lepidoptera; but considering the display of their beauty, I am not yet inclined to think that I am altogether in error.

I didn't receive your essay for a few days after your very kind letter, and since I read German so slowly, I just finished it. (268/1. "Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie" I. "Ueber den Saison-Dimorphismus," 1875. It was already known that two forms of the genus Vanessa, which were thought to be different species, are actually just SEASONAL forms of the same species—one showing up in spring, the other in summer. This fascinating relationship is the focus of the essay.) Your work has greatly interested me, and your conclusions seem well-supported. I've been curious about season-dimorphism for a long time but could never come up with a theory on it. Undoubtedly, your viewpoint is very significant as it relates to the broader question of variability. When I wrote the "Origin," I couldn't find any facts that demonstrated the direct influence of climate and other external conditions. I thought a while ago that the time would come when the causes of variation would be thoroughly discussed, and no one has contributed as much as you have to this important topic. The recent evidence showing the differences between birds of the same species in the Northern and Southern United States clearly illustrates the impact of climate. The two sexes of a few birds there are differently influenced by climate, and I mentioned this fact in the latest edition of my "Descent of Man." (268/2. "Descent of Man," Edition II. (in one volume), page 423. Allen demonstrated that many species of birds are more brightly colored in the southern United States, and that sometimes one sex is more affected than the other. This last point relates to Weismann's comments (loc. cit., pages 44, 45) on Pieris napi. The males of the alpine-boreal form bryoniae hardly differ from those of the German form (var. vernalis), while the females are strikingly different. Thus, the nature of secondary sexual differences is determined by climate.) Therefore, I am fully open to acknowledging the validity of your criticism regarding sexual selection in lepidoptera; however, considering their display of beauty, I'm not entirely convinced that I'm completely wrong.

What you say about reversion (268/3. For instance, the fact that reversion to the primary winter-form may be produced by the disturbing effect of high temperature (page 7).) being excited by various causes, agrees with what I concluded with respect to the remarkable effects of crossing two breeds: namely, that anything which disturbs the constitution leads to reversion, or, as I put the case under my hypothesis of pangenesis, gives a good chance of latent gemmules developing. Your essay, in my opinion, is an admirable one, and I thank you for the interest which it has afforded me.

What you mentioned about reversion (268/3. For example, the fact that reversion to the primary winter form can be triggered by the disruptive impact of high temperatures (page 7).) being caused by various factors aligns with my conclusion regarding the notable effects of crossing two breeds: specifically, that anything disrupting the constitution results in reversion, or, as I described in my pangenesis hypothesis, increases the likelihood of latent gemmules developing. In my view, your essay is excellent, and I appreciate the insight it has provided me.

P.S. I find that there are several points, which I have forgotten. Mr. Jenner Weir has not published anything more about caterpillars, but I have written to him, asking him whether he has tried any more experiments, and will keep back this letter till I receive his answer. Mr. Riley of the United States supports Mr. Weir, and you will find reference to him and other papers at page 426 of the new and much-corrected edition of my "Descent of Man." As I have a duplicate copy of Volume I. (I believe Volume II. is not yet published in german) I send it to you by this post. Mr. Belt, in his travels in Nicaragua, gives several striking cases of conspicuously coloured animals (but not caterpillars) which are distasteful to birds of prey: he is an excellent observer, and his book, "The Naturalist in Nicaragua," very interesting.

P.S. I realize there are a few points I’ve forgotten. Mr. Jenner Weir hasn’t published anything new about caterpillars, but I’ve reached out to him to see if he’s conducted any more experiments, and I’ll hold onto this letter until I get his reply. Mr. Riley from the United States supports Mr. Weir, and you can find a reference to him and other papers on page 426 of the new and greatly revised edition of my "Descent of Man." Since I have a duplicate copy of Volume I (I believe Volume II hasn’t been published in German yet), I’m sending it to you in this post. Mr. Belt, during his travels in Nicaragua, provides several striking examples of brightly colored animals (not caterpillars) that are unappealing to birds of prey: he’s an excellent observer, and his book, "The Naturalist in Nicaragua," is very interesting.

I am very much obliged for your photograph, which I am particularly glad to possess, and I send mine in return.

I really appreciate your photograph, which I'm especially happy to have, and I'm sending you mine in return.

I see you allude to Hilgendorf's statements, which I was sorry to see disputed by some good German observer. Mr. Hyatt, an excellent palaeontologist of the United States, visited the place, and likewise assured me that Hilgendorf was quite mistaken. (268/4. See Letters 252-7.)

I see you mention Hilgendorf's claims, which I was disappointed to see challenged by a reliable German observer. Mr. Hyatt, a great paleontologist from the United States, visited the site and also confirmed that Hilgendorf was completely wrong. (268/4. See Letters 252-7.)

I am grieved to hear that your eyesight still continues bad, but anyhow it has forced your excellent work in your last essay.

I’m sorry to hear that your eyesight is still poor, but it has at least inspired the great work in your latest essay.

May 4th. Here is what Mr. Weir says:—

May 4th. Here’s what Mr. Weir says:—

"In reply to your inquiry of Saturday, I regret that I have little to add to my two communications to the 'Entomological Society Transactions.'

"In response to your inquiry from Saturday, I’m sorry to say that I don’t have much more to add to my two communications to the 'Entomological Society Transactions.'

"I repeated the experiments with gaudy caterpillars for years, and always with the same results: not on a single occasion did I find richly coloured, conspicuous larvae eaten by birds. It was more remarkable to observe that the birds paid not the slightest attention to gaudy caterpillars, not even when in motion,—the experiments so thoroughly satisfied my mind that I have now given up making them."

"I repeated the experiments with brightly colored caterpillars for years, and every time I got the same results: not once did I find brightly colored, noticeable larvae being eaten by birds. It was even more surprising to see that the birds didn't pay any attention to these colorful caterpillars, not even when they were moving. The experiments convinced me so completely that I have now stopped doing them."

LETTER 269. TO LAWSON TAIT.

(269/1. The late Mr. Lawson Tait wrote to Mr. Darwin (June 2nd, 1875): "I am watching a lot of my mice from whom I removed the tails at birth, and I am coming to the conclusion that the essential use of the tail there is as a recording organ—that is, they record in their memories the corners they turn and the height of the holes they pass through by touching them with their tails." Mr. Darwin was interested in the idea because "some German sneered at Natural Selection and instanced the tails of mice.")

(269/1. The late Mr. Lawson Tait wrote to Mr. Darwin (June 2nd, 1875): "I am observing a lot of my mice from whom I removed their tails at birth, and I am concluding that the main purpose of the tail is as a recording organ—that is, they memorize the corners they turn and the height of the holes they go through by touching them with their tails." Mr. Darwin found this idea intriguing because "some German dismissed Natural Selection and pointed to the tails of mice as an example.")

June 11th, 1875.

June 11, 1875.

It has just occurred to me to look at the "Origin of Species" (Edition VI., page 170), and it is certain that Bronn, in the appended chapter to his translation of my book into german, did advance ears and tail of various species of mice as a difficulty opposed to Natural Selection. I answered with respect to ears by alluding to Schobl's curious paper (I forget when published) (269/2. J. Schobl, "Das aussere Ohr der Mause als wichtiges Tastorgan." "Archiv. Mik. Anat." VII., 1871, page 260.) on the hairs of the ears being sensitive and provided with nerves. I presume he made fine sections: if you are accustomed to such histological work, would it not be worth while to examine hairs of tail of mice? At page 189 I quote Henslow (confirmed by Gunther) on Mus messorius (and other species?) using tail as prehensile organ.

It just occurred to me to check out the "Origin of Species" (Edition VI., page 170), and it's clear that Bronn, in the additional chapter of his German translation of my book, brought up the ears and tails of different species of mice as a challenge to Natural Selection. I responded regarding the ears by referencing Schobl's interesting paper (I can't remember when it was published) (269/2. J. Schobl, "Das aussere Ohr der Mause als wichtiges Tastorgan." "Archiv. Mik. Anat." VII., 1871, page 260.) about the hair on the ears being sensitive and having nerves. I assume he made fine sections: if you're familiar with that kind of histological work, wouldn't it be worth examining the tail hairs of mice? On page 189, I cite Henslow (verified by Gunther) regarding Mus messorius (and possibly other species?) using their tails as a grasping organ.

Dr. Kane in his account of the second Grinnell Expedition says that the Esquimaux in severe weather carry a fox-tail tied to the neck, which they use as a respirator by holding the tip of the tail between their teeth. (269/3. The fact is stated in Volume II., page 24, of E.K. Kane's "Arctic Explorations: The Second Grinnell Expedition in Search of Sir John Franklin." Philadelphia, 1856.)

Dr. Kane, in his account of the second Grinnell Expedition, mentions that the Inuit in harsh weather carry a fox tail tied around their neck, using it as a respirator by holding the tip of the tail between their teeth. (269/3. The fact is stated in Volume II, page 24, of E.K. Kane's "Arctic Explorations: The Second Grinnell Expedition in Search of Sir John Franklin." Philadelphia, 1856.)

He says also that he found a frozen fox curled up with his nose buried in his tail.

He also says that he found a frozen fox curled up with its nose buried in its tail.

N.B. It is just possible that the latter fact is stated by M'Clintock, not by Dr. Kane.

N.B. It’s possible that M'Clintock mentioned this fact, not Dr. Kane.

(269/4. The final passage is a postscript by Mr. W.E. Darwin bearing on Mr. Lawson Tait's idea of the respirator function of the fox's tail.)

(269/4. The final passage is a postscript by Mr. W.E. Darwin regarding Mr. Lawson Tait's idea about the fox's tail serving a respiratory function.)

LETTER 270. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, July 12th, 1875.

LETTER 270. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, July 12, 1875.

I am correcting a second edition of "Variation under Domestication," and find that I must do it pretty fully. Therefore I give a short abstract of potato graft-hybrids, and I want to know whether I did not send you a reference about beet. Did you look to this, and can you tell me anything about it?

I’m working on the second edition of "Variation under Domestication," and I realize I need to make quite a few corrections. So, I’m providing a brief overview of potato graft-hybrids, and I want to check if I sent you a reference about beet. Did you look into this, and can you share any information about it?

I hope with all my heart that you are getting on pretty well with your experiments.

I truly hope you're doing well with your experiments.

I have been led to think a good deal on the subject, and am convinced of its high importance, though it will take years of hammering before physiologists will admit that the sexual organs only collect the generative elements.

I’ve thought a lot about this topic and I’m convinced it’s really important, even though it will take years of effort before biologists accept that the sexual organs just collect the reproductive elements.

The edition will be published in November, and then you will see all that I have collected, but I believe that you gave all the more important cases. The case of vine in "Gardeners' Chronicle," which I sent you, I think may only be a bud-variation not due to grafting. I have heard indirectly of your splendid success with nerves of medusae. We have been at Abinger Hall for a month for rest, which I much required, and I saw there the cut-leaved vine which seems splendid for graft hybridism.

The edition will be published in November, and then you’ll see everything I’ve gathered. However, I believe you covered all the more significant cases. The case of the vine in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," which I sent you, may just be a bud variation not caused by grafting. I’ve heard indirectly about your amazing success with medusae nerves. We’ve been at Abinger Hall for a month for some much-needed rest, and while I was there, I saw the cut-leaved vine that looks fantastic for graft hybridism.

LETTER 271. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, November 7th, 1875.

I have read your essay with much curiosity and interest, but you probably have no idea how excessively difficult it is to understand. (271/1. "A Theory of Heredity" ("Journal of the Anthropological Institute," 1875). In this paper Mr. Galton admits that the hypothesis of organic units "must lie at the foundation of the science of heredity," and proceeds to show in what respect his conception differs from the hypothesis of pangenesis. The copy of Mr. Galton's paper, which Darwin numbered in correspondence with the criticisms in his letter, is not available, and we are therefore only able to guess at some of the points referred to.) I cannot fully grasp, only here and there conjecture, what are the points on which we differ. I daresay this is chiefly due to muddy-headedness on my part, but I do not think wholly so. Your many terms, not defined, "developed germs," "fertile," and "sterile germs" (the word "germ" itself from association misleading to me) "stirp," "sept," "residue," etc., etc., quite confounded me. If I ask myself how you derive, and where you place the innumerable gemmules contained within the spermatozoa formed by a male animal during its whole life, I cannot answer myself. Unless you can make several parts clearer I believe (though I hope I am altogether wrong) that only a few will endeavour or succeed in fathoming your meaning. I have marked a few passages with numbers, and here make a few remarks and express my opinion, as you desire it, not that I suppose it will be of any use to you.

I read your essay with a lot of curiosity and interest, but you probably have no idea how incredibly difficult it is to understand. (271/1. "A Theory of Heredity" ("Journal of the Anthropological Institute," 1875). In this paper, Mr. Galton admits that the idea of organic units "must lie at the foundation of the science of heredity," and goes on to explain how his view differs from the idea of pangenesis. The copy of Mr. Galton's paper that Darwin referenced in his criticisms is not available, so we can only guess at some of the points he mentioned.) I can't fully understand and can only speculate here and there about where we disagree. I suppose this is mainly because I'm a bit confused, but I don't think it's entirely so. Your many terms, which are not defined, like "developed germs," "fertile," and "sterile germs" (the word "germ" itself is misleading to me because of its associations), "stirp," "sept," "residue," and so on, completely baffled me. When I ask myself how you derive and where you find the countless gemmules contained in the spermatozoa formed by a male animal throughout its life, I can't come up with an answer. Unless you can clarify several parts, I believe (though I hope I'm completely wrong) that only a few people will try or succeed in grasping your meaning. I've marked a few passages with numbers, and here I’ll share some comments and express my opinion, as you requested, though I doubt it will be of any help to you.

1. If this implies that many parts are not modified by use and disuse during the life of the individual, I differ widely from you, as every year I come to attribute more and more to such agency. (271/2. This seems to refer to page 329 of Mr. Galton's paper. The passage must have been hastily read, and has been quite misunderstood. Mr. Galton has never expressed the view attributed to him.)

1. If this suggests that many parts aren’t changed by use and disuse throughout an individual's life, I strongly disagree with you, as every year I find myself attributing more and more to that influence. (271/2. This seems to refer to page 329 of Mr. Galton's paper. The passage must have been read quickly and has been completely misunderstood. Mr. Galton has never expressed the view that is being attributed to him.)

2. This seems rather bold, as sexuality has not been detected in some of the lowest forms, though I daresay it may hereafter be. (271/3. Mr. Galton, op. cit., pages 332-3: "There are not of a necessity two sexes, because swarms of creatures of the simplest organisations mainly multiply by some process of self-division.")

2. This seems pretty bold, since sexuality hasn't been found in some of the simplest forms, although I believe it might be discovered in the future. (271/3. Mr. Galton, op. cit., pages 332-3: "There aren't necessarily two sexes, because many creatures with the simplest structures primarily reproduce through some form of self-division.")

3. If gemmules (to use my own term) were often deficient in buds, I cannot but think that bud-variations would be commoner than they are in a state of nature; nor does it seem that bud-variations often exhibit deficiencies which might be accounted for by the absence of the proper gemmules. I take a very different view of the meaning or cause of sexuality. (271/4. Mr. Galton's idea is that in a bud or other asexually produced part, the germs (i.e. gemmules) may not be completely representative of the whole organism, and if reproduction is continued asexually "at each successive stage there is always a chance of some one or more of the various species of germs... dying out" (page 333). Mr. Galton supposes, in sexual reproduction, where two parents contribute germs to the embryo the chance of deficiency of any of the necessary germs is greatly diminished. Darwin's "very different view of the meaning or cause of sexuality" is no doubt that given in "Cross and Self Fertilisation"—i.e., that sexuality is equivalent to changed conditions, that the parents are not representative of different sexes, but of different conditions of life.)

3. If gemmules (my own term) often lacked buds, I believe bud variations would be more common than they are in nature; it also seems that bud variations rarely show deficiencies that could be explained by missing gemmules. I have a very different perspective on the meaning or cause of sexuality. (271/4. Mr. Galton believes that in a bud or any part produced asexually, the germs (i.e., gemmules) might not fully represent the entire organism, and if asexual reproduction continues, "at each successive stage there is always a chance of some one or more of the various species of germs... dying out" (page 333). Mr. Galton assumes that in sexual reproduction, where two parents contribute germs to the embryo, the chances of lacking any necessary germs are significantly reduced. Darwin's "very different view of the meaning or cause of sexuality" is likely the idea presented in "Cross and Self Fertilisation"—that sexuality corresponds to changing conditions, and that the parents are not just different sexes, but represent different life conditions.)

4. I have ordered "Fraser's Magazine" (271/5. "The History of Twins," by F. Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," November, 1875, republished with additions in the "Journal of the Anthropological Institute," 1875. Mr. Galton explains the striking dissimilarity of twins which is sometimes met with by supposing that the offspring in this case divide the available gemmules between them in such a way that each is the complement of the other. Thus, to put the case in an exaggerated way, similar twins would each have half the gemmules A, B, C,...Z., etc, whereas, in the case of dissimilar twins, one would have all the gemmules A, B, C, D,...M, and the other would have N...Z.), and am curious to learn how twins from a single ovum are distinguished from twins from two ova. Nothing seems to me more curious than the similarity and dissimilarity of twins.

4. I have ordered "Fraser's Magazine" (271/5. "The History of Twins," by F. Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," November 1875, republished with additions in the "Journal of the Anthropological Institute," 1875. Mr. Galton explains the remarkable differences among twins that sometimes occur by suggesting that in these cases, the offspring split the available gemmules between them in such a way that each one complements the other. So, to exaggerate the example, identical twins would each have half of the gemmules A, B, C,...Z., etc., while in the case of fraternal twins, one would have all the gemmules A, B, C, D,...M, and the other would have N...Z.). I'm curious to know how twins from a single ovum are different from twins from two ova. Nothing fascinates me more than the similarity and difference of twins.

5. Awfully difficult to understand.

Really hard to understand.

6. I have given almost the same notion.

6. I've expressed almost the same idea.

7. I hope that all this will be altered. I have received new and additional cases, so that I have now not a shadow of doubt.

7. I hope that all of this will change. I have received new and additional cases, so I now have no doubt at all.

8. Such cases can hardly be spoken of as very rare, as you would say if you had received half the number of cases I have.

8. These cases can barely be called very rare, as you might say if you had received half the number of cases I have.

(271/6. We are unable to determine to what paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 refer.)

(271/6. We can't figure out what paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 are referring to.)

I am very sorry to differ so much from you, but I have thought that you would desire my open opinion. Frank is away, otherwise he should have copied my scrawl.

I’m really sorry to disagree with you so much, but I thought you’d want my honest opinion. Frank is away; otherwise, he would have typed out my messy handwriting.

I have got a good stock of pods of sweet peas, but the autumn has been frightfully bad; perhaps we may still get a few more to ripen.

I have a good supply of sweet pea pods, but the autumn has been really rough; maybe we’ll still get a few more to ripen.

LETTER 272. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 12th {1875}.

Many thanks for your "Biology," which I have read. (272/1. "A Course of Practical Instruction in Elementary Biology," by T.H. Huxley and H.N. Martin, 1875. For an account of the book see "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page 380.) It was a real stroke of genius to think of such a plan. Lord, how I wish I had gone through such a course!

Many thanks for your "Biology," which I've read. (272/1. "A Course of Practical Instruction in Elementary Biology," by T.H. Huxley and H.N. Martin, 1875. For details about the book, see "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page 380.) It was truly brilliant to come up with such a plan. Man, how I wish I had taken that course!

LETTER 273. TO FRANCIS GALTON. December 18th {1875}.

LETTER 273. TO FRANCIS GALTON. December 18, 1875.

George has been explaining our differences. I have admitted in the new edition (273/1. In the second edition (1875) of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 350, reference is made to Mr. Galton's transfusion experiments, "Proc. R. Soc." XIX., page 393; also to Mr. Galton's letter to "Nature," April 27th, 1871, page 502. This is a curious mistake; the letter in "Nature," April 27th, 1871, is by Darwin himself, and refers chiefly to the question whether gemmules may be supposed to be in the blood. Mr. Galton's letter is in "Nature," May 4th, 1871, Volume IV., page 5. See Letter 235.) (before seeing your essay) that perhaps the gemmules are largely multiplied in the reproductive organs; but this does not make me doubt that each unit of the whole system also sends forth its gemmules. You will no doubt have thought of the following objection to your views, and I should like to hear what your answer is. If two plants are crossed, it often, or rather generally, happens that every part of stem, leaf, even to the hairs, and flowers of the hybrid are intermediate in character; and this hybrid will produce by buds millions on millions of other buds all exactly reproducing the intermediate character. I cannot doubt that every unit of the hybrid is hybridised and sends forth hybridised gemmules. Here we have nothing to do with the reproductive organs. There can hardly be a doubt from what we know that the same thing would occur with all those animals which are capable of budding, and some of these (as the compound Ascidians) are sufficiently complex and highly organised.

George has been discussing our differences. I acknowledged in the new edition (273/1. In the second edition (1875) of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 350, it mentions Mr. Galton's transfusion experiments, "Proc. R. Soc." XIX., page 393; also, Mr. Galton's letter to "Nature," dated April 27th, 1871, page 502. This is an interesting mistake; the letter in "Nature," April 27th, 1871, is actually from Darwin himself and mainly discusses whether gemmules might be found in the blood. Mr. Galton's letter appears in "Nature," May 4th, 1871, Volume IV., page 5. See Letter 235.) (before reading your essay) that perhaps gemmules are significantly increased in the reproductive organs; but this doesn't make me doubt that each unit of the whole system also produces its gemmules. You probably have considered the following objection to your ideas, and I'd like to know your response. When two plants are crossed, it often, or rather generally, occurs that every part of the stem, leaf, down to the hairs, and flowers of the hybrid displays intermediate characteristics; this hybrid will generate millions of other buds that all exactly replicate these intermediate traits. I can't deny that every unit of the hybrid is hybridized and produces hybridized gemmules. This doesn't involve the reproductive organs. There’s little doubt based on what we know that the same would happen with all animals capable of budding, and some of these (like the compound Ascidians) are complex and highly organized.

LETTER 274. TO LAWSON TAIT. March 25th, 1876.

(274/1. The reference is to the theory put forward in the first edition of "Variation of Animals and Plants," II., page 15, that the asserted tendency to regeneration after the amputation of supernumerary digits in man is a return to the recuperative powers characteristic of a "lowly organised progenitor provided with more than five digits." Darwin's recantation is at Volume I., page 459 of the second edition.)

(274/1. The reference is to the theory presented in the first edition of "Variation of Animals and Plants," II., page 15, which claims that the supposed ability to regenerate after amputating extra fingers in humans is a return to the healing abilities typical of a "less developed ancestor with more than five fingers." Darwin's retraction is found in Volume I., page 459 of the second edition.)

Since reading your first article (274/2. Lawson Tait wrote two notices on "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" in the "Spectator" of March 4th, 1876, page 312, and March 25th, page 406.), Dr. Rudinger has written to me and sent me an essay, in which he gives the results of the MOST EXTENSIVE inquiries from all eminent surgeons in Germany, and all are unanimous about non-growth of extra digits after amputation. They explain some apparent cases, as Paget did to me. By the way, I struck out of my second edition a quotation from Sir J. Simpson about re-growth in the womb, as Paget demurred, and as I could not say how a rudiment of a limb due to any cause could be distinguished from an imperfect re-growth. Two or three days ago I had another letter from Germany from a good naturalist, Dr. Kollmann (274/3. Dr. Kollmann was Secretary of the Anthropologische Gesellschaft of Munich, in which Society took place the discussion referred to in "Variation of Animals and Plants," I., 459, as originating Darwin's doubts on the whole question. The fresh evidence adduced by Kollmann as to the normal occurrence of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians is Borus' paper, "Die sechste Zehe der Anuren" in "Morpholog. Jahrbuch," Bd. I., page 435. On this subject see Letter 178.), saying he was sorry that I had given up atavism and extra digits, and telling me of new and good evidence of rudiments of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians (which I had myself seen, but given up owing to Gegenbaur's views); but, with re-growth failing me, I could not uphold my old notion.

Since reading your first article (274/2. Lawson Tait wrote two notices on "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" in the "Spectator" of March 4th, 1876, page 312, and March 25th, page 406.), Dr. Rudinger reached out to me and sent me an essay where he shares the findings from the MOST EXTENSIVE inquiries of all the top surgeons in Germany, and they all agree that extra digits do not grow back after amputation. They explain some apparent cases, just like Paget did for me. By the way, I removed a quote from Sir J. Simpson about regrowth in the womb from my second edition because Paget disagreed, and I couldn't determine how a rudiment of a limb, regardless of the cause, could be differentiated from an incomplete regrowth. A couple of days ago, I received another letter from Germany from a respected naturalist, Dr. Kollmann (274/3. Dr. Kollmann was the Secretary of the Anthropologische Gesellschaft of Munich, where the discussion mentioned in "Variation of Animals and Plants," I., 459, originated Darwin's doubts about the entire question. The new evidence presented by Kollmann regarding the normal occurrence of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians is Borus' paper, "Die sechste Zehe der Anuren" in "Morpholog. Jahrbuch," Bd. I., page 435. On this topic, see Letter 178.), expressing his regret that I had abandoned the idea of atavism and extra digits and informing me about new and solid evidence of rudimentary sixth digits in Batrachians (which I had also observed but dismissed due to Gegenbaur's theories); however, since I couldn't support my old idea with evidence of regrowth, I had to let it go.

LETTER 275. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(275/1. Mr. Romanes' reply to this letter is printed in his "Life and Letters," page 93, where by an oversight it is dated 1880-81.)

(275/1. Mr. Romanes' response to this letter is printed in his "Life and Letters," page 93, where it is mistakenly dated 1880-81.)

H. Wedgwood, Esq., Hopedene, Dorking, May 29th {1876}.

H. Wedgwood, Esq., Hopedene, Dorking, May 29, 1876.

As you are interested in pangenesis, and will some day, I hope, convert an "airy nothing" into a substantial theory, I send by this post an essay by Hackel (275/2. "Die Perigenesis der Plastidule oder die Wellenzeugung der Lebenstheilchen," 79 pages. Berlin, 1876.) attacking Pan. and substituting a molecular hypothesis. If I understand his views rightly, he would say that with a bird which strengthened its wings by use, the formative protoplasm of the strengthened parts became changed, and its molecular vibrations consequently changed, and that these vibrations are transmitted throughout the whole frame of the bird, and affect the sexual elements in such a manner that the wings of the offspring are developed in a like strengthened manner. I imagine he would say, in cases like those of Lord Morton's mare (275/3. A nearly pure-bred Arabian chestnut mare bore a hybrid to a quagga, and subsequently produced two striped colts by a black Arabian horse: see "Animals and Plants," I., page 403. The case was originally described in the "Philosophical Transactions," 1821, page 20. For an account of recent work bearing on this question, see article on "Zebras, Horses, and Hybrids," in the "Quarterly Review," October 1899. See Letter 235.), that the vibrations from the protoplasm, or "plasson," of the seminal fluid of the zebra set plasson vibrating in the mare; and that these vibrations continued until the hair of the second colt was formed, and which consequently became barred like that of a zebra. How he explains reversion to a remote ancestor, I know not. Perhaps I have misunderstood him, though I have skimmed the whole with some care. He lays much stress on inheritance being a form of unconscious memory, but how far this is part of his molecular vibration, I do not understand. His views make nothing clearer to me; but this may be my fault. No one, I presume, would doubt about molecular movements of some kind. His essay is clever and striking. If you read it (but you must not on my account), I should much like to hear your judgment, and you can return it at any time. The blue lines are Hackel's to call my attention.

As you're interested in pangenesis and hopefully will someday turn an "airy nothing" into a solid theory, I'm sending you an essay by Hackel (275/2. "Die Perigenesis der Plastidule oder die Wellenzeugung der Lebenstheilchen," 79 pages. Berlin, 1876.) that critiques Pangenesis and proposes a molecular hypothesis instead. If I understand his ideas correctly, he suggests that when a bird strengthens its wings through use, the formative protoplasm in those enhanced parts changes, along with its molecular vibrations. These vibrations then spread throughout the entire body of the bird and impact the reproductive elements, influencing the wings of its offspring to develop similarly strong. I think he would argue, in cases like that of Lord Morton's mare (275/3. A nearly pure-bred Arabian chestnut mare bore a hybrid to a quagga, and subsequently produced two striped colts by a black Arabian horse: see "Animals and Plants," I., page 403. The case was originally described in the "Philosophical Transactions," 1821, page 20. For an account of recent work bearing on this question, see article on "Zebras, Horses, and Hybrids," in the "Quarterly Review," October 1899. See Letter 235.), that the vibrations from the protoplasm, or "plasson," in the zebra's semen influence the "plasson" in the mare; and that these vibrations persisted until the hair of the second colt formed, resulting in its zebra-like stripes. I'm not sure how he explains reverting to a distant ancestor. I might have misunderstood him, even though I skimmed through it carefully. He emphasizes that inheritance is a form of unconscious memory, but I'm unclear on how this connects to his idea of molecular vibrations. His ideas don’t clarify anything for me, but that might be on me. I assume no one would dispute that some kind of molecular movements exist. His essay is clever and thought-provoking. If you read it (but you shouldn't feel pressured to on my behalf), I’d really like to hear your thoughts, and you can return it whenever you want. The blue lines are Hackel's, meant to catch my attention.

We have come here for rest for me, which I have much needed; and shall remain here for about ten days more, and then home to work, which is my sole pleasure in life. I hope your splendid Medusa work and your experiments on pangenesis are going on well. I heard from my son Frank yesterday that he was feverish with a cold, and could not dine with the physiologists, which I am very sorry for, as I should have heard what they think about the new Bill. I see that you are one of the secretaries to this young Society.

We’ve come here to rest, which I really needed; and we’ll stay for about ten more days, then it’s back home to work, which is my only joy in life. I hope your amazing Medusa project and your experiments on pangenesis are going well. I heard from my son Frank yesterday that he was feeling feverish with a cold and couldn’t join the physiologists for dinner, which I’m really sorry about, as I wanted to hear their thoughts on the new Bill. I see that you’re one of the secretaries for this new Society.

LETTER 276. TO H.N. MOSELEY. Down, November 22nd {1876}.

It is very kind of you to send me the Japanese books, which are extremely curious and amusing. My son Frank is away, but I am sure he will be much obliged for the two papers which you have sent him.

It’s really thoughtful of you to send me the Japanese books, which are very interesting and entertaining. My son Frank is away, but I know he’ll be very grateful for the two papers you sent him.

Thanks, also, for your interesting note. It is a pity that Peripatus (276/1. Moseley "On the Structure and Development of Peripatus capensis" ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 164, page 757, 1874). "When suddenly handled or irritated, they (i.e. Peripatus) shoot out fine threads of a remarkably viscid and tenacious milky fluid... projected from the tips of the oral papillae" (page 759).) is so stupid as to spit out the viscid matter at the wrong end of its body; it would have been beautiful thus to have explained the origin of the spider's web.

Thanks for your interesting note. It's a shame that Peripatus (276/1. Moseley "On the Structure and Development of Peripatus capensis" ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 164, page 757, 1874). "When suddenly handled or irritated, they (i.e. Peripatus) shoot out fine threads of a remarkably sticky and tough milky fluid... projected from the tips of the oral papillae" (page 759).) is so foolish as to eject the sticky substance from the wrong end of its body; it would have been great to explain the origin of the spider's web this way.

LETTER 277. NAPHTALI LEWY TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(277/1. The following letter refers to a book, "Toledoth Adam," written by a learned Jew with the object of convincing his co-religionists of the truth of the theory of evolution. The translation we owe to the late Henry Bradshaw, University Librarian at Cambridge. The book is unfortunately no longer to be found in Mr. Darwin's library.)

(277/1. The following letter refers to a book, "Toledoth Adam," written by a knowledgeable Jew aiming to convince his fellow believers of the truth of the theory of evolution. The translation is credited to the late Henry Bradshaw, University Librarian at Cambridge. Unfortunately, the book can no longer be found in Mr. Darwin's library.)

{1876}.

To the Lord, the Prince, who "stands for an ensign of the people" (Isa. xi. 10), the Investigator of the generation, the "bright son of the morning" (Isa. xiv. 12), Charles Darwin, may he live long!

To the Lord, the Prince, who "represents a banner for the people" (Isa. xi. 10), the Seeker of the generation, the "shining star of the morning" (Isa. xiv. 12), Charles Darwin, may he live long!

"From the rising of the sun and from the west" (Isa. xlv. 6) all the nations know concerning the Torah (Theory) (277/2. Lit., instruction. The Torah is the Pentateuch, strictly speaking, the source of all knowledge.) which has "proceeded from thee for a light of the people" (Isa. li. 4), and the nations "hear and say, It is truth" (Isa. xliii. 9). But with "the portion of my people" (Jer. x. 16), Jacob, "the lot of my inheritance" (Deut. xxxii. 9), it is not so. This nation, "the ancient people" (Isa. xliv. 7), which "remembers the former things and considers the things of old (Isa. xliii. 18), "knows not, neither doth it understand" (Psalm lxxxii. 5), that by thy Torah (instruction or theory) thou hast thrown light upon their Torah (the Law), and that the eyes of the Hebrews (277/3. One letter in this word changed would make the word "blind," which is what Isaiah uses in the passage alluded to.) "can now see out of obscurity and out of darkness" (Isa. xxix. 18). Therefore "I arose" (Judges v. 7) and wrote this book, "Toledoth Adam" ("the generations of man," Gen. v. 1), to teach the children of my people, the seed of Jacob, the Torah (instruction) which thou hast given for an inheritance to all the nations of the earth.

"From the rising of the sun to the west" (Isa. xlv. 6), all the nations are aware of the Torah (Teaching) (277/2. Lit., instruction. The Torah is the Pentateuch, which is essentially the source of all knowledge.) that has "come from you as a light for the people" (Isa. li. 4), and the nations "hear and say, It is true" (Isa. xliii. 9). But as for "the portion of my people" (Jer. x. 16), Jacob, "the lot of my inheritance" (Deut. xxxii. 9), it isn’t the same. This nation, "the ancient people" (Isa. xliv. 7), that "remembers the past and considers things from long ago" (Isa. xliii. 18), "does not know, nor do they understand" (Psalm lxxxii. 5), that through your Torah (instruction or teaching) you have illuminated their Torah (the Law), and that the eyes of the Hebrews (277/3. A single letter change in this word would turn it into "blind," which is what Isaiah refers to in the aforementioned passage.) "can now see out of obscurity and darkness" (Isa. xxix. 18). Therefore, "I arose" (Judges v. 7) and wrote this book, "Toledoth Adam" ("the generations of man," Gen. v. 1), to teach the children of my people, the seed of Jacob, the Torah (instruction) that you have given as an inheritance to all the nations of the earth.

And I have "proceeded to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder" (Isa. xxix. 14), enabling them now to read in the Torah of Moses our teacher, "plainly and giving the sense" (Neh. viii. 8), that which thou hast given in thy Torahs (works of instruction). And when my people perceive that thy view has by no means "gone astray" (Num. v. 12, 19, etc.) from the Torah of God, they will hold thy name in the highest reverence, and "will at the same time glorify the God of Israel" (Isa. xxix. 23).

And I have "done an amazing work among this people, even an amazing work and a wonder" (Isa. xxix. 14), allowing them now to read in the Torah of Moses our teacher, "clearly and giving the meaning" (Neh. viii. 8), that which you have given in your Torahs (guides). And when my people realize that your perspective has by no means "gone off track" (Num. v. 12, 19, etc.) from the Torah of God, they will hold your name in the highest respect, and "will at the same time honor the God of Israel" (Isa. xxix. 23).

"The vision of all this" (Isa. xxix. 11) thou shalt see, O Prince of Wisdom, in this book, "which goeth before me" (Gen. xxxii. 21); and whatever thy large understanding finds to criticise in it, come, "write it in a table and note it in a book" (Isa. xxx. 8); and allow me to name my work with thy name, which is glorified and greatly revered by

"The vision of all this" (Isa. xxix. 11) you will see, O Prince of Wisdom, in this book, "which goes before me" (Gen. xxxii. 21); and whatever you find in it to critique, come, "write it in a table and note it in a book" (Isa. xxx. 8); and let me name my work after you, whose name is glorified and greatly honored by

Thy servant, Naphtali Hallevi {i.e. the Levite}.

Dated here in the city of Radom, in the province of Poland, in the month of Nisan in the year 636, according to the lesser computation (i.e. A.M. {5}636 = A.D. 1876).

LETTER 278. TO OTTO ZACHARIAS. 1877.

When I was on board the "Beagle" I believed in the permanence of species, but, as far as I can remember, vague doubts occasionally flitted across my mind. On my return home in the autumn of 1836 I immediately began to prepare my journal for publication, and then saw how many facts indicated the common descent of species (278/1. "The facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but until the relations of the existing with the extinct species and of the species of the different geographical areas, with one another were determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation. It was not possible that this determination should have been effected before the return of the "Beagle" to England; and thus the date which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind becomes intelligible."—From "Darwiniana," Essays by Thomas H. Huxley, London, 1893; pages 274-5.), so that in July, 1837, I opened a notebook to record any facts which might bear on the question; but I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years had elapsed. (278/2. On this last point see page 38.)

When I was on the "Beagle," I believed species were unchanging, but I remember having some vague doubts now and then. When I got home in the fall of 1836, I immediately started preparing my journal for publication and noticed a lot of facts that suggested species have a common ancestry (278/1. "The facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but until the relations of the existing with the extinct species and of the species of the different geographical areas, with one another were determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation. It was not possible that this determination should have been effected before the return of the 'Beagle' to England; and thus the date which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind becomes intelligible."—From "Darwiniana," Essays by Thomas H. Huxley, London, 1893; pages 274-5.), so in July 1837, I started a notebook to record any facts that might relate to the question. However, I didn't become fully convinced that species could change until, I think, two or three years later. (278/2. On this last point see page 38.)

LETTER 279. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(279/1. The following letter refers to MS. notes by Romanes, which we have not seen. Darwin's remarks on it are, however, sufficiently clear.)

(279/1. The following letter refers to MS. notes by Romanes, which we have not seen. Darwin's comments on it are, however, quite clear.)

My address will be "Bassett, Southampton," June 11th {1877}.

I have received the crossing paper which you were so kind as to send me. It is very clear, and I quite agree with it; but the point in question has not been a difficulty to me, as I have never believed in a new form originating from a single variation. What I have called unconscious selection by man illustrates, as it seems to me, the same principle as yours, within the same area. Man purchases the individual animals or plants which seem to him the best in any respect—some more so, and some less so—and, without any matching or pairing, the breed in the course of time is surely altered. The absence in numerous instances of intermediate or blending forms, in the border country between two closely allied geographical races or close species, seemed to me a greater difficulty when I discussed the subject in the "Origin."

I’ve received the crossing paper you kindly sent me. It’s very clear, and I completely agree with it; however, the issue in question hasn’t been a problem for me, as I’ve never believed that a new form comes from a single variation. What I refer to as unconscious selection by humans illustrates, in my opinion, the same principle as yours, within the same context. People choose individual animals or plants that they think are the best in some way—some more so, and some less—and, without any matching or pairing, the breed gradually changes over time. The lack of many intermediate or blending forms in the border area between two closely related geographical races or species seemed to me a greater challenge when I discussed the topic in the "Origin."

With respect to your illustration, it formerly drove me half mad to attempt to account for the increase or diminution of the productiveness of an organism; but I cannot call to mind where my difficulty lay. (279/2. See Letters 209-16.) Natural Selection always applies, as I think, to each individual and its offspring, such as its seeds, eggs, which are formed by the mother, and which are protected in various ways. (279/3. It was in regard to this point that Romanes had sent the MS. to Darwin. In a letter of June 16th he writes: "It was with reference to the possibility of Natural Selection acting on organic types as distinguished from individuals,—a possibility which you once told me did not seem at all clear.") There does not seem any difficulty in understanding how the productiveness of an organism might be increased; but it was, as far as I can remember, in reducing productiveness that I was most puzzled. But why I scribble about this I know not.

Regarding your example, it used to drive me crazy trying to figure out why the productivity of an organism would go up or down; I just can't remember what my confusion was about. (279/2. See Letters 209-16.) I think Natural Selection applies to each individual and its offspring, like seeds and eggs that the mother produces, which are protected in various ways. (279/3. This was the point that Romanes sent the manuscript to Darwin about. In a letter dated June 16th, he wrote: "It was about the possibility of Natural Selection acting on organic types as opposed to individuals—a possibility you once told me wasn't very clear.") It doesn't seem hard to understand how an organism's productivity could increase; but if I recall correctly, I was most perplexed by how productivity could decrease. But I don’t even know why I'm writing about this.

I have read your review of Mr. Allen's book (279/4. See "Nature" (June 7th, 1877, page 98), a review of Grant Allen's "Physiological Aesthetics."), and it makes me more doubtful, even, than I was before whether he has really thrown much light on the subject.

I have read your review of Mr. Allen's book (279/4. See "Nature" (June 7th, 1877, page 98), a review of Grant Allen's "Physiological Aesthetics."), and it makes me even more doubtful than I was before about whether he has actually shed much light on the topic.

I am glad to hear that some physiologists take the same view as I did about your giving too much credit to H. Spencer—though, heaven knows, this is a rare fault. (279/5. The reference is to Romanes' lecture on Medusa, given at the Royal Institution, May 25th. (See "Nature," XVI., pages 231, 269, 289.) It appears from a letter of Romanes (June 6th) that it was the abstract in the "Times" that gave the impression referred to. References to Mr. Spencer's theories of nerve-genesis occur in "Nature," pages 232, 271, 289.)

I’m glad to hear that some physiologists agree with me about you giving too much credit to H. Spencer—though, honestly, that’s a pretty rare mistake. (279/5. The reference is to Romanes' lecture on Medusa, given at the Royal Institution, May 25th. (See "Nature," XVI., pages 231, 269, 289.) It looks like a letter from Romanes (June 6th) indicates that it was the summary in the "Times" that created the impression mentioned. References to Mr. Spencer's theories on nerve-genesis can be found in "Nature," pages 232, 271, 289.)

The more I think of your medusa-nerve-work the more splendid it seems to me.

The more I think about your medusa-like talent, the more amazing it seems to me.

LETTER 280. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, August 3rd, 1877.

I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your long and interesting letter. The cause and means of the transition from an hermaphrodite to a unisexual condition seems to me a very perplexing problem, and I shall be extremely glad to read your remarks on Smilax, whenever I receive the essay which you kindly say that you will send me. (280/1. "Monographiae Phanerogamarum," Volume I. In his treatment of the Smilaceae, De Candolle distinguishes:—Heterosmilax which has dioecious flowers without a trace of aborted stamens or pistils, Smilax with sterile stamens in the female flowers, and Rhipogonum with hermaphrodite flowers.) There is much justice in your criticisms (280/2. The passage criticised by De Candolle is in "Forms of Flowers" (page 7): "It is a natural inference that their corollas have been increased in size for this special purpose." De Candolle goes on to give an account of the "recherche linguistique," which, with characteristic fairness, he undertook to ascertain whether the word "purpose" differs in meaning from the corresponding French word "but.") on my use of the terms object, end, purpose; but those who believe that organs have been gradually modified for Natural Selection for a special purpose may, I think, use the above terms correctly, though no conscious being has intervened. I have found much difficulty in my occasional attempts to avoid these terms, but I might perhaps have always spoken of a beneficial or serviceable effect. My son Francis will be interested by hearing about Smilax. He has dispatched to you a copy of his paper on the glands of Dipsacus (280/3. "Quart. Journ. Mic. Sci." 1877.), and I hope that you will find time to read it, for the case seems to me a new and highly remarkable one. We are now hard at work on an attempt to make out the function or use of the bloom or waxy secretion on the leaves and fruit of many plants; but I doubt greatly whether our experiments will tell us much. (280/4. "As it is we have made out clearly that with some plants (chiefly succulent) the bloom checks evaporation—with some certainly prevents attacks of insects; with some sea-shore plants prevents injury from salt-water, and I believe, with a few prevents injury from pure water resting on the leaves." (See letter to Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, "Life and Letters," III., page 341. A paper on the same subject by Francis Darwin was published in the "Journ. Linn. Soc." XXII.)) If you have any decided opinion whether plants with conspicuously glaucous leaves are more frequent in hot than in temperate or cold, in dry than in damp countries, I should be grateful if you would add to your many kindnesses by informing me. Pray give my kind remembrances to your son, and tell him that my son has been trying on a large scale the effects of feeding Drosera with meat, and the results are most striking and far more favourable than I anticipated.

I want to thank you for your long and interesting letter. The reasons and methods behind the change from an hermaphrodite to a unisexual state seem like a really puzzling issue to me, and I look forward to reading your comments on Smilax whenever I get the essay you mentioned you'd send. (280/1. "Monographiae Phanerogamarum," Volume I. In his discussion on the Smilaceae, De Candolle distinguishes: Heterosmilax which has dioecious flowers with no traces of aborted stamens or pistils, Smilax with sterile stamens in the female flowers, and Rhipogonum with hermaphrodite flowers.) Your criticisms are quite valid (280/2. The passage criticized by De Candolle is in "Forms of Flowers" (page 7): "It is a natural inference that their corollas have been increased in size for this special purpose." De Candolle also provides an account of the "recherche linguistique," which he undertook fairly to see whether the word "purpose" means something different from the French word "but.") regarding my use of the terms object, end, and purpose; but I think those who believe that organs have gradually evolved through Natural Selection for a specific purpose can use these terms correctly, even if no conscious being has been involved. I’ve found it quite challenging to avoid these terms in my occasional attempts, but I could have described it as a beneficial or useful effect instead. My son Francis will be interested to learn about Smilax. He has sent you a copy of his paper on the glands of Dipsacus (280/3. "Quart. Journ. Mic. Sci." 1877.), and I hope you will find time to read it, as the case seems quite new and remarkable to me. We are currently working hard to determine the function or use of the bloom or waxy secretion on the leaves and fruit of many plants, but I doubt we'll gain much from our experiments. (280/4. "As it is we have made out clearly that with some plants (mainly succulent) the bloom reduces evaporation—with others it definitely prevents insect damage; with some coastal plants it prevents harm from saltwater, and I believe, with a few, it prevents damage from pure water sitting on the leaves." (See letter to Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, "Life and Letters," III., page 341. A paper on the same topic by Francis Darwin was published in the "Journ. Linn. Soc." XXII.)) If you have a strong opinion on whether plants with notably glaucous leaves are more common in hot climates than in temperate or cold regions, or in dry areas as opposed to damp ones, I would appreciate it if you could share your thoughts. Please send my best regards to your son, and let him know that my son has been experimenting on a large scale with feeding Drosera meat, and the results are incredibly impressive and much better than I expected.

LETTER 281. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(281/1. Published in the "Life and Letters" of Romanes, page 66.)

Down, Saturday Night {1877}.

I have just finished your lecture (281/2. "The Scientific Evidence of Organic Evolution: a Discourse" (delivered before the Philosophical Society of Ross-shire), Inverness, 1877. It was reprinted in the "Fortnightly Review," and was afterwards worked up into a book under the above title.); it is an admirable scientific argument, and most powerful. I wish that it could be sown broadcast throughout the land. Your courage is marvellous, and I wonder that you were not stoned on the spot—and in Scotland! Do please tell me how it was received in the Lecture Hall. About man being made like a monkey (page 37 (281/3. "And if you reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent, you can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape" ("Discourse," page 37).)) is quite new to me, and the argument in an earlier place (page 8 (281/4. At page 8 of the "Discourse" the speaker referred to the law "which Sir William Hamilton called the Law of Parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the desired effects," as constituting the "only logical barrier between Science and Superstition.")) on the law of parsimony admirably put. Yes, page 21 (281/5. "Discourse," page 21. If we accept the doctrines of individual creations and ideal types, we must believe that the Deity acted "with no other apparent motive than to suggest to us, by every one of the observable facts, that the ideal types are nothing other than the bonds of a lineal descent.") is new to me. All strike me as very clear, and, considering small space, you have chosen your lines of reasoning excellently.

I just finished your lecture (281/2. "The Scientific Evidence of Organic Evolution: a Discourse" (delivered before the Philosophical Society of Ross-shire), Inverness, 1877. It was reprinted in the "Fortnightly Review," and was later developed into a book under the same title.); it’s a fantastic scientific argument and extremely powerful. I wish it could be shared widely across the country. Your bravery is remarkable, and I’m surprised you weren’t attacked on the spot—and in Scotland of all places! Please let me know how it was received in the Lecture Hall. The idea of humans being made like monkeys (page 37 (281/3. "And if you reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent, you can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape" ("Discourse," page 37).)) is completely new to me, and the argument about the law of parsimony (page 8 (281/4. At page 8 of the "Discourse" the speaker referred to the law "which Sir William Hamilton called the Law of Parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the desired effects," as constituting the "only logical barrier between Science and Superstition.")) is excellently presented. Yes, page 21 (281/5. "Discourse," page 21. If we accept the doctrines of individual creations and ideal types, we must believe that the Deity acted "with no other apparent motive than to suggest to us, by every one of the observable facts, that the ideal types are nothing other than the bonds of a lineal descent.") is also new to me. All of it seems very clear, and given the limited space, you’ve chosen your lines of reasoning exceptionally well.

The few last pages are awfully powerful, in my opinion.

The last few pages are incredibly powerful, in my opinion.

Sunday Morning.—The above was written last night in the enthusiasm of the moment, and now—this dark, dismal Sunday morning—I fully agree with what I said.

Sunday Morning.—The above was written last night in the excitement of the moment, and now—this dark, gloomy Sunday morning—I completely agree with what I said.

I am very sorry to hear about the failures in the graft experiments, and not from your own fault or ill-luck. Trollope in one of his novels gives as a maxim of constant use by a brickmaker—"It is dogged as does it" (281/6. "Tell 'ee what, Master Crawley;—and yer reverence mustn't think as I means to be preaching; there ain't nowt a man can't bear if he'll only be dogged. You go whome, Master Crawley, and think o' that, and may be it'll do ye a good yet. It's dogged as does it. It ain't thinking about it." (Giles Hoggett, the old Brickmaker, in "The Last Chronicle of Barset," Volume II., 1867, page 188.))—and I have often and often thought that this is the motto for every scientific worker. I am sure it is yours—if you do not give up pangenesis with wicked imprecations.

I'm really sorry to hear about the issues with the graft experiments, and it's not due to your fault or bad luck. Trollope in one of his novels shares a saying commonly used by a brickmaker—“It’s persistence that gets it done” (281/6. “Let me tell you, Master Crawley; and you mustn’t think I mean to preach; there’s nothing a man can’t handle if he just stays persistent. You go home, Master Crawley, and think about that, and maybe it’ll help you. It’s persistence that gets it done. It’s not about just thinking.” (Giles Hoggett, the old Brickmaker, in “The Last Chronicle of Barset,” Volume II., 1867, page 188.))—and I’ve often thought that this should be the motto for every scientist. I’m sure it’s yours too—unless you’ve given up on pangenesis with some angry curses.

By the way, G. Jager has brought out in "Kosmos" a chemical sort of pangenesis bearing chiefly on inheritance. (281/7. Several papers by Jager on "Inheritance" were published in the first volume of "Kosmos," 1877.)

By the way, G. Jager has published a chemical version of pangenesis in "Kosmos," focusing mainly on inheritance. (281/7. Several papers by Jager on "Inheritance" were published in the first volume of "Kosmos," 1877.)

I cannot conceive why I have not offered my garden for your experiments. I would attend to the plants, as far as mere care goes, with pleasure; but Down is an awkward place to reach.

I can't understand why I haven't let you use my garden for your experiments. I'd be happy to take care of the plants, but Down is a hard place to get to.

Would it be worth while to try if the "Fortnightly" would republish it {i.e. the lecture}?

Would it be worth trying to see if the "Fortnightly" would republish it {i.e. the lecture}?

LETTER 282. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(282/1. In 1877 the honorary degree of LL.D. was conferred on Mr. Darwin by the University of Cambridge. At the dinner given on the occasion by the Philosophical Society, Mr. Huxley responded to the toast of the evening with the speech of which an authorised version is given by Mr. L. Huxley in the "Life and Letters" of his father (Volume I., page 479). Mr. Huxley said, "But whether the that doctrine {of evolution} be true or whether it be false, I wish to express the deliberate opinion, that from Aristotle's great summary of the biological knowledge of his time down to the present day, there is nothing comparable to the "Origin of Species," as a connected survey of the phenomena of life permeated and vivified by a central idea."

(282/1. In 1877, the honorary degree of LL.D. was awarded to Mr. Darwin by the University of Cambridge. At the dinner held by the Philosophical Society to celebrate this occasion, Mr. Huxley answered the evening's toast with a speech that is officially recorded by Mr. L. Huxley in the "Life and Letters" of his father (Volume I., page 479). Mr. Huxley stated, "Regardless of whether the doctrine of evolution is true or false, I want to express my considered opinion that from Aristotle's comprehensive summary of the biological knowledge of his time to today, nothing compares to the 'Origin of Species' as a cohesive exploration of life’s phenomena, driven and brought to life by a central idea."

In the first part of the speech there was a brilliant sentence which he described as a touch of the whip "tied round with ribbons," and this was perhaps a little hard on the supporters of evolution in the University. Mr. Huxley said "Instead of offering her honours when they ran a chance of being crushed beneath the accumulated marks of approbation of the whole civilised world, the University has waited until the trophy was finished, and has crowned the edifice with the delicate wreath of academic appreciation.")

In the first part of the speech, there was a standout sentence that he described as a touch of the whip "wrapped in ribbons," which was probably a bit harsh on the supporters of evolution at the University. Mr. Huxley said, "Instead of giving her honors when they had a chance of being buried under the overwhelming praise of the entire civilized world, the University waited until the accomplishment was complete, and then crowned the structure with the delicate wreath of academic recognition."

Down, Monday night, November 19th {1877}.

I cannot rest easy without telling you more gravely than I did when we met for five minutes near the Museum, how deeply I have felt the many generous things (as far as Frank could remember them) which you said about me at the dinner. Frank came early next morning boiling over with enthusiasm about your speech. You have indeed always been to me a most generous friend, but I know, alas, too well how greatly you overestimate me. Forgive me for bothering you with these few lines.

I can’t relax without letting you know more seriously than I did when we met for five minutes near the museum how much I appreciated all the kind things (as far as Frank could recall) you said about me at dinner. Frank came by early the next morning, brimming with excitement about your speech. You have truly always been a wonderful friend to me, but I know, unfortunately, how much you overrate me. Sorry for bothering you with this message.

(282/2. The following extract from a letter (February 10th, 1878) to his old schoolfellow, Mr. J. Price, gives a characteristic remark about the honorary degree.)

(282/2. The following extract from a letter (February 10th, 1878) to his old schoolmate, Mr. J. Price, gives a characteristic remark about the honorary degree.)

"I am very much obliged for your kind congratulations about the LL.D. Why the Senate conferred it on me I know not in the least. I was astonished to hear that the R. Prof. of Divinity and several other great Dons attended, and several such men have subscribed, as I am informed, for the picture for the University to commemorate the honour conferred on me."

"I really appreciate your kind congratulations on the LL.D. I honestly have no idea why the Senate chose to give it to me. I was surprised to hear that the R. Prof. of Divinity and several other distinguished scholars attended, and I’ve been told that some of these individuals have contributed to the painting for the University to celebrate this honor given to me."

LETTER 283. TO W. BOWMAN.

(283/1. We have not discovered to what prize the following letter to the late Sir W. Bowman (the well known surgeon) refers.)

(283/1. We haven't figured out what prize the following letter to the late Sir W. Bowman (the well-known surgeon) is talking about.)

Down, February 22nd, 1878.

Down, February 22, 1878.

I received your letter this morning, and it was quite impossible that you should receive an answer by 4 p.m. to-day. But this does not signify in the least, for your proposal seems to me a very good one, and I most entirely agree with you that it is far better to suggest some special question rather than to have a general discussion compiled from books. The rule that the Essay must be "illustrative of the wisdom and beneficence of the Almighty" would confine the subjects to be proposed. With respect to the Vegetable Kingdom, I could suggest two or three subjects about which, as it seems to me, information is much required; but these subjects would require a long course of experiment, and unfortunately there is hardly any one in this country who seems inclined to devote himself to experiments.

I got your letter this morning, and it was totally impossible for you to get a response by 4 p.m. today. But that doesn't matter at all, because I think your proposal is really good, and I completely agree with you that it’s much better to suggest a specific question rather than have a general discussion based on books. The rule that the Essay must be "illustrative of the wisdom and beneficence of the Almighty" would limit the subjects we could propose. As for the Vegetable Kingdom, I could suggest a couple of topics that seem to need more information; however, these topics would require a long period of experimentation, and unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be anyone in this country willing to dedicate themselves to experiments.

LETTER 284. TO J. TORBITT.

(284/1. Mr. Torbitt was engaged in trying to produce by methodical selection and cross-fertilisation a fungus-proof race of the potato. The plan is fully described in the "Life and Letters," III., page 348. The following letter is given in additional illustration of the keen interest Mr. Darwin took in the project.)

(284/1. Mr. Torbitt was working on developing a fungus-resistant strain of potato through careful selection and crossbreeding. The details of the plan can be found in the "Life and Letters," III., page 348. The letter below further illustrates the strong interest Mr. Darwin had in the project.)

Down, Monday, March 4th, 1878.

Down, March 4, 1878.

I have nothing good to report. Mr. Caird called upon me yesterday; both he and Mr. Farrer (284/2. The late Lord Farrer.) have been most energetic and obliging. There is no use in thinking about the Agricultural Society. Mr. Caird has seen several persons on the subject, especially Mr. Carruthers, Botanist to the Society. He (Mr. Carruthers) thinks the attempt hopeless, but advances in a long memorandum sent to Mr. Caird, reasons which I am convinced are not sound. He specifies two points, however, which are well worthy of your consideration—namely, that a variety should be tested three years before its soundness can be trusted; and especially it should be grown under a damp climate. Mr. Carruthers' opinion on this head is valuable because he was employed by the Society in judging the varieties sent in for the prize offered a year or two ago. If I had strength to get up a memorial to Government, I believe that I could succeed; for Sir J. Hooker writes that he believes you are on the right path; but I do not know to whom else to apply whose judgment would have weight with Government, and I really have not strength to discuss the matter and convert persons.

I don’t have anything positive to share. Mr. Caird visited me yesterday; both he and Mr. Farrer have been very enthusiastic and helpful. There's no point in thinking about the Agricultural Society. Mr. Caird has spoken to several people about it, especially Mr. Carruthers, who is the Botanist for the Society. He thinks the effort is pointless but has provided a long memo to Mr. Caird with reasons that I’m sure aren’t valid. However, he highlights two points that are definitely worth your attention: that a variety should be tested for three years before its reliability can be confirmed, and particularly, it should be grown in a damp climate. Mr. Carruthers’ opinion is valuable because he was involved with the Society in evaluating the varieties submitted for the prize a year or two ago. If I had the energy to put together a petition to the Government, I believe I could succeed; since Sir J. Hooker mentioned that he thinks you’re on the right track. But I don’t know who else to approach whose opinion would carry weight with the Government, and I honestly don’t have the energy to discuss the issue and persuade others.

At Mr. Farrer's request, when we hoped the Agricultural Society might undertake it, I wrote to him a long letter giving him my opinion on the subject; and this letter Mr. Caird took with him yesterday, and will consider with Mr. Farrer whether any application can be made to Government.

At Mr. Farrer's request, when we thought the Agricultural Society might take it on, I wrote him a detailed letter sharing my thoughts on the matter; and this letter Mr. Caird brought with him yesterday, and will discuss with Mr. Farrer whether any request can be made to the Government.

I am, however, far from sanguine. I shall see Mr. Farrer this evening, and will do what I can. When I receive back my letter I will send it to you for your perusal.

I’m not feeling very optimistic, though. I’ll meet with Mr. Farrer this evening and do my best. Once I get my letter back, I’ll send it to you so you can read it.

After much reflection it seems to me that your best plan will be, if we fail to get Government aid, to go on during the present year, on a reduced scale, in raising new cross-fertilised varieties, and next year, if you are able, testing the power of endurance of only the most promising kind. If it were possible it would be very advisable for you to get some grown on the wet western side of Ireland. If you succeed in procuring a fungus-proof variety you may rely on it that its merits would soon become known locally and it would afterwards spread rapidly far and wide. Mr. Caird gave me a striking instance of such a case in Scotland. I return home to-morrow morning.

After thinking it over, I believe the best approach for you, if we don't get government support, is to continue this year on a smaller scale with developing new cross-fertilized varieties. Then next year, if you're able, test the endurance of only the most promising ones. If possible, it would be very beneficial for you to have some grown on the wet western side of Ireland. If you manage to get a fungus-resistant variety, you can be sure that its benefits will quickly become known locally, and it will spread rapidly beyond that. Mr. Caird shared an impressive example of such a case in Scotland. I'm heading home tomorrow morning.

I have the pleasure to enclose a cheque for 100 pounds. If you receive a Government grant, I ought to be repaid.

I’m happy to include a check for £100. If you get a government grant, I should be reimbursed.

P.S. If I were in your place I would not expend any labour or money in publishing what you have already done, or in sending seeds or tubers to any one. I would work quietly on till some sure results were obtained. And these would be so valuable that your work in this case would soon be known. I would also endeavour to pass as severe a judgment as possible on the state of the tubers and plants.

P.S. If I were you, I wouldn't waste any time or money publishing what you've already done, or sending seeds or tubers to anyone. I would keep working quietly until I got some solid results. And those would be so valuable that your work would soon be recognized. I would also try to judge as critically as possible the condition of the tubers and plants.

LETTER 285. TO E. VON MOJSISOVICS. Down, June 1st, 1878.

I have at last found time to read {the} first chapter of your "Dolomit Riffe" (285/1. "Dolomitriffe Sudtirols und Venetiens." Wien, 1878.), and have been exceedingly interested by it. What a wonderful change in the future of geological chronology you indicate, by assuming the descent-theory to be established, and then taking the graduated changes of the same group of organisms as the true standard! I never hoped to live to see such a step even proposed by any one. (285/2. Published in "Life and Letters," III., pages 234, 235.)

I finally found the time to read the first chapter of your "Dolomit Riffe" (285/1. "Dolomitriffe Sudtirols und Venetiens." Vienna, 1878.), and I found it extremely interesting. What an incredible shift in the future of geological chronology you propose by accepting the descent theory as established and then using the gradual changes of the same group of organisms as the true standard! I never expected to see such a suggestion made by anyone. (285/2. Published in "Life and Letters," III., pages 234, 235.)

Nevertheless, I saw dimly that each bed in a formation could contain only the organisms proper to a certain depth, and to other there existing conditions, and that all the intermediate forms between one marine species and another could rarely be preserved in the same place and bed. Oppel, Neumayr, and yourself will confer a lasting and admirable service on the noble science of Geology, if you can spread your views so as to be generally known and accepted.

Nevertheless, I vaguely understood that each layer could only hold the specific organisms that belong to a certain depth, along with the other existing conditions there, and that the transitional forms between different marine species could hardly be found in the same location and layer. Oppel, Neumayr, and you will provide a lasting and commendable service to the great field of Geology if you can share your ideas widely so that they become well-known and accepted.

With respect to the continental and oceanic periods common to the whole northern hemisphere, to which you refer, I have sometimes speculated that the present distribution of the land and sea over the world may have formerly been very different to what it now is; and that new genera and families may have been developed on the shores of isolated tracts in the south, and afterwards spread to the north.

With regard to the continental and oceanic periods that are common across the northern hemisphere, which you mentioned, I have sometimes wondered if the current arrangement of land and sea around the world used to be quite different from what it is now; and that new genera and families might have emerged on the shores of isolated areas in the south, and later expanded northward.

LETTER 286. TO J.W. JUDD. Down, June 27th, 1878.

I am heartily glad to hear of your intended marriage. A good wife is the supreme blessing in this life, and I hope and believe from what you say that you will be as happy as I have been in this respect. May your future geological work be as valuable as that which you have already done; and more than this need not be wished for any man. The practical teaching of Geology seems an excellent idea.

I’m really happy to hear about your upcoming marriage. A great wife is the greatest blessing in life, and I hope and believe, based on what you’ve said, that you’ll be as happy as I’ve been in this regard. May your future geological work be as valuable as what you’ve already accomplished; and more than that is not something any man could wish for. The hands-on teaching of Geology sounds like a fantastic idea.

Many thanks for Neumayr, (286/1. Probably a paper on "Die Congerien und Paludinenschichten Slavoniens und deren Fauna. Ein Beitrag zur Descendenz-Theorie," "Wien. Geol. Abhandl." VII. (Heft 3), 1874-82.), but I have already received and read a copy of the same, or at least of a very similar essay, and admirably good it seemed to me.

Many thanks to Neumayr for the paper on "Die Congerien und Paludinenschichten Slavoniens und deren Fauna. Ein Beitrag zur Descendenz-Theorie," published in "Wien. Geol. Abhandl." VII. (Issue 3), 1874-82. However, I've already received and read a copy of the same, or at least a very similar essay, and I found it to be excellent.

This essay, and one by Mojsisovics (286/2. See note to Letter 285.), which I have lately read, show what Palaeontology in the future will do for the classification and sequence of formations. It delighted me to see so inverted an order of proceeding—viz., the assuming the descent of species as certain, and then taking the changes of closely allied forms as the standard of geological time. My health is better than it was a few years ago, but I never pass a day without much discomfort and the sense of extreme fatigue.

This essay, along with one by Mojsisovics (286/2. See note to Letter 285.), which I recently read, demonstrates what paleontology will contribute to the classification and sequence of formations in the future. I was thrilled to see such an inverted approach—namely, assuming the descent of species as a certainty, and then using the changes in closely related forms as the benchmark for geological time. My health is better than it was a few years ago, but I still experience significant discomfort and a profound sense of fatigue every day.

(286/3. We owe to Professor Judd the following interesting recollections of Mr. Darwin, written about 1883:—

(286/3. We owe to Professor Judd the following interesting memories of Mr. Darwin, written around 1883:—

"On this last occasion, when I congratulated him on his seeming better condition of health, he told me of the cause for anxiety which he had in the state of his heart. Indeed, I cannot help feeling that he had a kind of presentiment that his end was approaching. When I left him, he insisted on conducting me to the door, and there was that in his tone and manner which seemed to convey to me the sad intelligence that it was not merely a temporary farewell, though he himself was perfectly cheerful and happy.

"On this final occasion, when I congratulated him on looking healthier, he mentioned his worries about his heart. Honestly, I can't shake the feeling that he had a sense that his end was near. When I was about to leave, he insisted on walking me to the door, and there was something in his tone and demeanor that seemed to tell me this wasn’t just a temporary goodbye, even though he appeared completely cheerful and happy."

"It is impossible for me adequately to express the impression made upon my mind by my various conversations with Mr. Darwin. His extreme modesty led him to form the lowest estimate of his own labours, and a correspondingly extravagant idea of the value of the work done by others. His deference to the arguments and suggestions of men greatly his juniors, and his unaffected sympathy in their pursuits, was most marked and characteristic; indeed, he, the great master of science, used to speak, and I am sure felt, as though he were appealing to superior authority for information in all his conversations. It was only when a question was fully discussed with him that one became conscious of the fund of information he could bring to its elucidation, and the breadth of thought with which he had grasped it. Of his gentle, loving nature, of which I had so many proofs, I need not write; no one could be with him, even for a few minutes, without being deeply impressed by his grateful kindliness and goodness.")

"It’s hard for me to fully express the impact that my conversations with Mr. Darwin had on me. His remarkable modesty led him to underestimate his own work while placing great value on the contributions of others. His respect for the ideas and suggestions of much younger men, combined with his genuine interest in their pursuits, was striking and defining. In fact, the great master of science often spoke—and I’m sure felt—as if he were turning to a higher authority for insight in every discussion. It was only after thoroughly discussing a topic with him that one realized the wealth of knowledge he had to offer and the depth of understanding with which he approached it. I won’t elaborate on his gentle and loving nature, of which I witnessed ample evidence; no one could spend even a few minutes with him without being deeply touched by his heartfelt kindness and goodness."

LETTER 287. TO COUNT SAPORTA. Down, August 15th, 1878.

I thank you very sincerely for your kind and interesting letter. It would be false in me to pretend that I care very much about my election to the Institute, but the sympathy of some few of my friends has gratified me deeply.

I sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and interesting letter. It would be dishonest for me to say that I care a lot about being elected to the Institute, but the support from a few of my friends has truly moved me.

I am extremely glad to hear that you are going to publish a work on the more ancient fossil plants; and I thank you beforehand for the volume which you kindly say that you will send me. I earnestly hope that you will give, at least incidentally, the results at which you have arrived with respect to the more recent Tertiary plants; for the close gradation of such forms seems to me a fact of paramount importance for the principle of evolution. Your cases are like those on the gradation in the genus Equus, recently discovered by Marsh in North America.

I’m really glad to hear that you’re going to publish a work on ancient fossil plants, and I appreciate you offering to send me a copy. I sincerely hope you’ll at least mention the results you’ve found regarding the more recent Tertiary plants, as the gradual changes in those forms seem incredibly important for the principle of evolution. Your examples are similar to the gradation in the genus Equus, which Marsh recently discovered in North America.

LETTER 288. TO THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.

(288/1. The following letter was published in "Nature," March 5th, 1891, Volume XLIII., page 415, together with a note from the late Duke of Argyll, in which he stated that the letter had been written to him by Mr. Darwin in reply to the question, "why it was that he did assume the unity of mankind as descended from a single pair." The Duke added that in the reply Mr. Darwin "does not repudiate this interpretation of his theory, but simply proceeds to explain and to defend the doctrine." On a former occasion the Duke of Argyll had "alluded as a fact to the circumstance that Charles Darwin assumed mankind to have arisen at one place, and therefore in a single pair." The letter from Darwin was published in answer to some scientific friends, who doubted the fact and asked for the reference on which the statement was based.)

(288/1. The following letter was published in "Nature," March 5th, 1891, Volume XLIII., page 415, along with a note from the late Duke of Argyll, in which he mentioned that the letter had been written to him by Mr. Darwin in response to the question, "Why did he assume that all of humanity descended from a single pair?" The Duke added that in his reply, Mr. Darwin "does not dismiss this interpretation of his theory, but simply goes on to explain and defend the doctrine." Previously, the Duke of Argyll had "noted as a fact that Charles Darwin believed mankind originated in one place, and therefore from a single pair." The letter from Darwin was published in response to some scientific friends who were skeptical of this fact and asked for the reference that supported the statement.)

Down, September 23rd, 1878.

Down, September 23, 1878.

The problem which you state so clearly is a very interesting one, on which I have often speculated. As far as I can judge, the improbability is extreme that the same well-characterised species should be produced in two distinct countries, or at two distinct times. It is certain that the same variation may arise in two distinct places, as with albinism or with the nectarine on peach-trees. But the evidence seems to me overwhelming that a well-marked species is the product, not of a single or of a few variations, but of a long series of modifications, each modification resulting chiefly from adaptation to infinitely complex conditions (including the inhabitants of the same country), with more or less inheritance of all the preceding modifications. Moreover, as variability depends more on the nature of the organism than on that of the environment, the variations will tend to differ at each successive stage of descent. Now it seems to me improbable in the highest degree that a species should ever have been exposed in two places to infinitely complex relations of exactly the same nature during a long series of modifications. An illustration will perhaps make what I have said clearer, though it applies only to the less important factors of inheritance and variability, and not to adaptation—viz., the improbability of two men being born in two countries identical in body and mind. If, however, it be assumed that a species at each successive stage of its modification was surrounded in two distinct countries or times, by exactly the same assemblage of plants and animals, and by the same physical conditions, then I can see no theoretical difficulty {in} such a species giving birth to the new form in the two countries. If you will look to the sixth edition of my "Origin," at page 100, you will find a somewhat analogous discussion, perhaps more intelligible than this letter.

The issue you've outlined so clearly is really interesting, and I've thought about it a lot. From what I can tell, it's highly unlikely that the same well-defined species would develop in two different countries or at two separate times. It's definitely possible for the same variation to occur in different places, like with albinism or the nectarine on peach trees. However, the evidence strongly suggests that a well-defined species comes from not just one or a few variations, but from a long series of changes, all primarily driven by adaptation to an incredibly complex set of conditions (including the other living things in the same area), along with more or less passing down all earlier changes. Additionally, since variability is influenced more by the organism itself than by the environment, variations will likely differ at each stage of descent. It seems extremely unlikely to me that a species could ever experience the same incredibly complex relationships in two different locations during a long series of changes. An example might clarify what I'm saying, even though it relates only to the less significant aspects of inheritance and variability, not adaptation—namely, the improbability of two men being born in different countries who are identical in body and mind. However, if we assume that at each stage of a species' development, it was surrounded in two different countries or times by exactly the same collection of plants and animals, along with the same physical conditions, then I don't see any theoretical problems with such a species giving rise to the new form in both places. If you check the sixth edition of my "Origin," on page 100, you'll find a somewhat similar discussion that might be clearer than this letter.

LETTER 289. W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE."

LETTER 289. W.T. THISSELTON-DYER TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE."

(289/1. The following letter ("Nature," Volume XLIII., page 535) criticises the interpretation given by the Duke to Mr. Darwin's letter.)

(289/1. The following letter ("Nature," Volume XLIII., page 535) criticizes the Duke's interpretation of Mr. Darwin's letter.)

Royal Gardens, Kew, March 27th {1891}.

In "Nature" of March 5th (page 415), the Duke of Argyll has printed a very interesting letter of Mr. Darwin's, from which he drew the inference that the writer "assumed mankind to have arisen...in a single pair." I do not think myself that the letter bears this interpretation. But the point in its most general aspect is a very important one, and is often found to present some difficulty to students of Mr. Darwin's writings.

In the March 5th issue of "Nature" (page 415), the Duke of Argyll published a fascinating letter from Mr. Darwin, from which he concluded that the writer "assumed mankind to have arisen...in a single pair." I don't believe that this letter supports that interpretation. However, the issue, in its broadest sense, is quite significant and often poses challenges for those studying Mr. Darwin's work.

Quite recently I have found by accident, amongst the papers of the late Mr. Bentham at Kew, a letter of friendly criticism from Mr. Darwin upon the presidential address which Mr. Bentham delivered to the Linnean Society on May 24th, 1869. This letter, I think, has been overlooked and not published previously. In it Mr. Darwin expresses himself with regard to the multiple origin of races and some other points in very explicit language. Prof. Meldola, to whom I mentioned in conversation the existence of the letter, urged me strongly to print it. This, therefore, I now do, with the addition of a few explanatory notes.

Recently, I accidentally came across a letter of friendly criticism from Mr. Darwin among the papers of the late Mr. Bentham at Kew. This letter, I believe, has been overlooked and not published before. In it, Mr. Darwin clearly addresses the multiple origins of races and some other points. Prof. Meldola, to whom I mentioned the existence of the letter in conversation, strongly urged me to publish it. So, I am doing that now, with a few explanatory notes added.

LETTER 290. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, November 25th, 1869.

(290/1. The notes to this letter are by Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, and appeared in "Nature," loc. cit.)

I was greatly interested by your address, which I have now read thrice, and which I believe will have much influence on all who read it. But you are mistaken in thinking that I ever said you were wrong on any point. All that I meant was that on certain points, and these very doubtful points, I was inclined to differ from you. And now, on further considering the point on which some two or three months ago I felt most inclined to differ—viz., on isolation—I find I differ very little. What I have to say is really not worth saying, but as I should be very sorry not to do whatever you asked, I will scribble down the slightly dissentient thoughts which have occurred to me. It would be an endless job to specify the points in which you have interested me; but I may just mention the relation of the extreme western flora of Europe (some such very vague thoughts have crossed my mind, relating to the Glacial period) with South Africa, and your remarks on the contrast of passive and active distribution.

I was really interested in your speech, which I've now read three times, and I believe it will have a significant impact on everyone who reads it. However, you're mistaken if you think I ever said you were wrong about anything. All I meant was that on certain issues—specifically, those that are quite uncertain—I was inclined to disagree with you. Now, after thinking more about the point I felt most inclined to disagree on a couple of months ago—namely, isolation—I find I actually disagree very little. What I have to say isn't really important, but since I would hate not to do whatever you ask, I’ll jot down the few thoughts I have that differ slightly. It would take forever to list all the points where you've captured my interest, but I should mention the relationship between the extreme western flora of Europe (I’ve had some vague thoughts about this related to the Glacial period) and South Africa, as well as your comments on the contrast between passive and active distribution.

Page lxx.—I think the contingency of a rising island, not as yet fully stocked with plants, ought always to be kept in mind when speaking of colonisation.

Page lxx.—I think the possibility of a new island, not yet filled with plants, should always be considered when discussing colonization.

Page lxxiv.—I have met with nothing which makes me in the least doubt that large genera present a greater number of varieties relatively to their size than do small genera. (290/2. Bentham thought "degree of variability... like other constitutional characters, in the first place an individual one, which...may become more or less hereditary, and therefore specific; and thence, but in a very faint degree, generic." He seems to mean to argue against the conclusion which Sir Joseph Hooker had quoted from Mr. Darwin that "species of large genera are more variable than those of small." {On large genera varying, see Letter 53.}) Hooker was convinced by my data, never as yet published in full, only abstracted in the "Origin."

Page lxxiv.—I haven't encountered anything that makes me doubt that larger genera have a greater number of varieties compared to their size than smaller genera do. (290/2. Bentham believed that "degree of variability... like other inherent traits, is initially an individual characteristic, which... may vary in how hereditary it is, and therefore become specific; and from that, but to a much lesser extent, generic." He seems to be arguing against the conclusion that Sir Joseph Hooker quoted from Mr. Darwin, which states that "species of large genera are more variable than those of small." {For information on large genera varying, see Letter 53.}) Hooker was convinced by my data, which has not yet been published in full, only summarized in the "Origin."

Page lxxviii.—I dispute whether a new race or species is necessarily, or even generally, descended from a single or pair of parents. The whole body of individuals, I believe, become altered together—like our race-horses, and like all domestic breeds which are changed through "unconscious selection" by man. (290/3. Bentham had said: "We must also admit that every race has probably been the offspring of one parent or pair of parents, and consequently originated in one spot." The Duke of Argyll inverts the proposition.)

Page lxxviii.—I question whether a new race or species is necessarily, or even usually, descended from a single parent or a pair of parents. I believe the entire group of individuals changes together—similar to our racehorses, and like all domestic breeds that are transformed through "unconscious selection" by humans. (290/3. Bentham mentioned: "We must also acknowledge that every race has likely originated from one parent or pair of parents, and thus started in one location." The Duke of Argyll reverses this idea.)

When such great lengths of time are considered as are necessary to change a specific form, I greatly doubt whether more or less rapid powers of multiplication have more than the most insignificant weight. These powers, I think, are related to greater or less destruction in early life.

When such long periods of time are taken into account to change a specific form, I seriously question whether faster or slower rates of multiplication have any significant impact. I believe these rates are connected to more or less destruction in early life.

Page lxxix.—I still think you rather underrate the importance of isolation. I have come to think it very important from various grounds; the anomalous and quasi-extinct forms on islands, etc., etc., etc.

Page lxxix.—I still believe you underestimate the importance of isolation. I've come to see it as very significant for several reasons, such as the unusual and seemingly extinct species found on islands, and so on.

With respect to areas with numerous "individually durable" forms, can it be said that they generally present a "broken" surface with "impassable barriers"? This, no doubt, is true in certain cases, as Teneriffe. But does this hold with South-West Australia or the Cape? I much doubt. I have been accustomed to look at the cause of so many forms as being partly an arid or dry climate (as De Candolle insists) which indirectly leads to diversified {?} conditions; and, secondly, to isolation from the rest of the world during a very long period, so that other more dominant forms have not entered, and there has been ample time for much specification and adaptation of character.

Regarding regions with many "individually durable" species, can we say they generally have a "broken" surface with "impassable barriers"? This is certainly true in some cases, like Teneriffe. But does it apply to South-West Australia or the Cape? I'm skeptical. I've come to see the reason for so many species as partly due to an arid or dry climate (as De Candolle argues), which indirectly leads to diverse conditions; and, secondly, to their long-term isolation from the rest of the world, allowing time for other dominant species to not enter and for significant specification and adaptation to occur.

Page lxxx.—I suppose you think that the Restiaceae, Proteaceae (290/4. It is doubtful whether Bentham did think so. In his 1870 address he says: "I cannot resist the opinion that all presumptive evidence is against European Proteaceae, and that all direct evidence in their favour has broken down upon cross-examination."), etc., etc., once extended over the world, leaving fragments in the south.

Page lxxx.—I guess you think that the Restiaceae, Proteaceae (290/4. It's questionable whether Bentham really thought that. In his 1870 address, he states: "I can't ignore the idea that all the evidence suggests the opposite for European Proteaceae, and that all the direct evidence supporting them has fallen apart under scrutiny."), and so on, once covered the world, leaving remnants in the south.

You in several places speak of distribution of plants as if exclusively governed by soil and climate. I know that you do not mean this, but I regret whenever a chance is omitted of pointing out that the struggle with other plants (and hostile animals) is far more important.

You often talk about how the distribution of plants is solely determined by soil and climate. I understand that’s not your intention, but I wish we could highlight more often that competition with other plants (and hostile animals) is much more significant.

I told you that I had nothing worth saying, but I have given you my THOUGHTS.

I told you I had nothing important to say, but I've shared my THOUGHTS.

How detestable are the Roman numerals! why should not the President's addresses, which are often, and I am sure in this case, worth more than all the rest of the number, be paged with Christian figures?

How awful are the Roman numerals! Why shouldn’t the President's speeches, which are often, and I’m sure in this case, worth more than all the other numbers, be numbered with regular digits?

LETTER 291. TO R. MELDOLA.

(291/1. "This letter was in reply to a suggestion that in his preface Mr. Darwin should point out by references to "The Origin of Species" and his other writings how far he had already traced out the path which Weismann went over. The suggestion was made because in a great many of the continental writings upon the theory of descent, many of the points which had been clearly foreshadowed, and in some cases even explicitly stated by Darwin, had been rediscovered and published as though original. In the notes to my edition of Weismann I have endeavoured to do Darwin full justice.—R.M." See Letter 310.)

(291/1. "This letter is a response to a suggestion that Mr. Darwin should mention in his preface, with references to 'The Origin of Species' and his other writings, how far he had already outlined the path that Weismann later followed. The suggestion came about because many of the points that Darwin had clearly hinted at, and in some instances even stated directly, had been rediscovered and presented in various continental writings on the theory of descent as if they were original ideas. In the notes to my edition of Weismann, I have tried to give Darwin the credit he deserves.—R.M." See Letter 310.)

4, Bryanston Street, November 26th, 1878.

I am very sorry to say that I cannot agree to your suggestion. An author is never a fit judge of his own work, and I should dislike extremely pointing out when and how Weismann's conclusions and work agreed with my own. I feel sure that I ought not to do this, and it would be to me an intolerable task. Nor does it seem to me the proper office of the preface, which is to show what the book contains, and that the contents appear to me valuable. But I can see no objection for you, if you think fit, to write an introduction with remarks or criticisms of any kind. Of course, I would be glad to advise you on any point as far as lay in my power, but as a whole I could have nothing to do with it, on the grounds above specified, that an author cannot and ought not to attempt to judge his own works, or compare them with others. I am sorry to refuse to do anything which you wish.

I'm really sorry to say that I can't agree to your suggestion. An author is never the best judge of their own work, and I would really dislike having to point out when and how Weismann's conclusions and work align with my own. I'm sure I shouldn't do this, and it would be an unbearable task for me. Plus, it doesn't seem appropriate for the preface, which should explain what the book contains and express that I find the content valuable. However, I see no reason why you can't write an introduction with your thoughts or criticisms if you feel it's right. Of course, I'd be happy to help you with any points within my ability, but overall, I really can't be involved, for the reasons I mentioned—that an author cannot and shouldn't try to judge their own works or compare them with others. I'm sorry to decline to do anything you want.

LETTER 292. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 18th, 1879.

I have just finished your present of the Life of Hume (292/1. "Hume" in Mr. Morley's "English Men of Letters" series. Of the biographical part of this book Mr. Huxley wrote, in a letter to Mr. Skelton, January 1879 ("Life of T.H. Huxley," II., page 7): "It is the nearest approach to a work of fiction of which I have yet been guilty."), and must thank you for the great pleasure which it has given me. Your discussions are, as it seems to me, clear to a quite marvellous degree, and many of the little interspersed flashes of wit are delightful. I particularly enjoyed the pithy judgment in about five words on Comte. (292/2. Possibly the passage referred to is on page 52.) Notwithstanding the clearness of every sentence, the subjects are in part so difficult that I found them stiff reading. I fear, therefore, that it will be too stiff for the general public; but I heartily hope that this will prove to be a mistake, and in this case the intelligence of the public will be greatly exalted in my eyes. The writing of this book must have been awfully hard work, I should think.

I just finished your gift of the Life of Hume (292/1. "Hume" in Mr. Morley's "English Men of Letters" series. About the biographical section of this book, Mr. Huxley wrote in a letter to Mr. Skelton in January 1879 ("Life of T.H. Huxley," II., page 7): "It is the closest I've come to writing a work of fiction."), and I have to thank you for the immense pleasure it brought me. Your discussions are, to me, remarkably clear, and many of the little bursts of wit are delightful. I especially liked the concise remark about Comte in just about five words. (292/2. Possibly the passage referred to is on page 52.) Despite the clarity of each sentence, some topics are so complex that I found them challenging to read. I'm worried that it might be too tough for the general public, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong, and if so, I’ll hold the public's intelligence in even higher regard. Writing this book must have been incredibly hard work, I imagine.

LETTER 293. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 4th {1879}.

I thank you cordially for your letter. Your facts and discussion on the loss of the hairs on the legs of the caddis-flies seem to me the most important and interesting thing which I have read for a very long time. I hope that you will not disapprove, but I have sent your letter to "Nature" (293/1. Fritz Muller, "On a Frog having Eggs on its Back—On the Abortion of the Hairs on the Legs of certain Caddis-Flies, etc.": Muller's letter and one from Charles Darwin were published in "Nature," Volume XIX., page 462, 1879.), with a few prefatory remarks, pointing out to the general reader the importance of your view, and stating that I have been puzzled for many years on this very point. If, as I am inclined to believe, your view can be widely extended, it will be a capital gain to the doctrine of evolution. I see by your various papers that you are working away energetically, and, wherever you look, you seem to discover something quite new and extremely interesting. Your brother also continues to do fine work on the fertilisation of flowers and allied subjects.

I sincerely thank you for your letter. Your insights and discussion about the loss of hairs on the legs of caddis-flies are the most important and interesting things I’ve read in a long time. I hope you won’t mind, but I’ve sent your letter to "Nature" (293/1. Fritz Muller, "On a Frog having Eggs on its Back—On the Abortion of the Hairs on the Legs of certain Caddis-Flies, etc.": Muller's letter and one from Charles Darwin were published in "Nature," Volume XIX., page 462, 1879.), along with some introductory comments highlighting the significance of your perspective and mentioning that I’ve been puzzled about this issue for many years. If, as I suspect, your view can be broadly applied, it will significantly benefit the theory of evolution. I can see from your various papers that you’re working hard and discovering new and extremely interesting things wherever you look. Your brother is also doing great work on flower fertilization and related topics.

I have little or nothing to tell you about myself. I go slowly crawling on with my present subject—the various and complicated movements of plants. I have not been very well of late, and am tired to-day, so will write no more. With the most cordial sympathy in all your work, etc.

I don’t have much to share about myself. I’m slowly making my way through my current topic—the many complex movements of plants. I haven’t been feeling well lately, and I’m tired today, so I won’t write any more. Sending you my warmest thoughts for all your work, etc.

LETTER 294. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 19th, 1879.

Many thanks for the book. (294/1. Ernst Hackel's "Freedom in Science and Teaching," with a prefatory note by T.H. Huxley, 1879. Professor Hackel has recently published (without permission) a letter in which Mr. Darwin comments severely on Virchow. It is difficult to say which would have pained Mr. Darwin more—the affront to a colleague, or the breach of confidence in a friend.) I have read only the preface...It is capital, and I enjoyed the tremendous rap on the knuckles which you gave Virchow at the close. What a pleasure it must be to write as you can do!

Many thanks for the book. (294/1. Ernst Hackel's "Freedom in Science and Teaching," with a prefatory note by T.H. Huxley, 1879. Professor Hackel has recently published (without permission) a letter in which Mr. Darwin harshly criticizes Virchow. It's hard to say which would have upset Mr. Darwin more—the insult to a colleague or the betrayal of a friend's trust.) I've only read the preface...It's excellent, and I really enjoyed the strong criticism you gave Virchow at the end. What a pleasure it must be to write as you do!

LETTER 295. TO E.S. MORSE. Down, October 21st, 1879.

LETTER 295. TO E.S. MORSE. Down, October 21, 1879.

Although you are so kind as to tell me not to write, I must just thank you for the proofs of your paper, which has interested me greatly. (295/1. See "The Shell Mounds of Omori" in the "Memoirs of the Science Department of the Univ. of Tokio," Volume I., Part I., 1879. The ridges on Arca are mentioned at page 25. In "Nature," April 15th, 1880, Mr. Darwin published a letter by Mr. Morse relating to the review of the above paper, which appeared in "Nature," XXI., page 350. Mr. Darwin introduces Mr. Morse's letter with some prefatory remarks. The correspondence is republished in the "American Naturalist," September, 1880.) The increase in the number of ridges in the three species of Arca seems to be a very noteworthy fact, as does the increase of size in so many, yet not all, the species. What a constant state of fluctuation the whole organic world seems to be in! It is interesting to hear that everywhere the first change apparently is in the proportional numbers of the species. I was much struck with the fact in the upraised shells of Coquimbo, in Chili, as mentioned in my "Geological Observations on South America."

Although you’re kind enough to tell me not to write, I just have to thank you for the proofs of your paper, which I found really interesting. (295/1. See "The Shell Mounds of Omori" in the "Memoirs of the Science Department of the Univ. of Tokio," Volume I., Part I., 1879. The ridges on Arca are mentioned on page 25. In "Nature," April 15th, 1880, Mr. Darwin published a letter by Mr. Morse regarding the review of the above paper, which appeared in "Nature," XXI., page 350. Mr. Darwin introduces Mr. Morse's letter with some introductory remarks. The correspondence is republished in the "American Naturalist," September, 1880.) The increase in the number of ridges in the three species of Arca seems to be a very noteworthy observation, as does the increase in size among many, though not all, species. What a constant state of fluctuation the whole organic world appears to be in! It’s interesting to learn that the first change everywhere seems to be in the proportional numbers of the species. I was struck by this fact regarding the upraised shells of Coquimbo, in Chile, as mentioned in my "Geological Observations on South America."

Of all the wonders in the world, the progress of Japan, in which you have been aiding, seems to me about the most wonderful.

Of all the amazing things in the world, Japan's progress, which you have been helping with, seems to me to be the most incredible.

LETTER 296. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 5th 1880.

As this note requires no sort of answer, you must allow me to express my lively admiration of your paper in the "Nineteenth Century." (296/1. "Nineteenth Century," January 1880, page 93, "On the Origin of Species and Genera.") You certainly are a master in the difficult art of clear exposition. It is impossible to urge too often that the selection from a single varying individual or of a single varying organ will not suffice. You have worked in capitally Allen's admirable researches. (296/2. J.A. Allen, "On the Mammals and Winter Birds of East Florida, etc." ("Bull. Mus. Comp. Zoolog. Harvard," Volume II.) As usual, you delight to honour me more than I deserve. When I have written about the extreme slowness of Natural Selection (296/3. Mr. Wallace makes a calculation based on Allen's results as to the very short period in which the formation of a race of birds differing 10 to 20 per cent. from the average in length of wing and strength of beak might conceivably be effected. He thinks that the slowness of the action of Natural Selection really depends on the slowness of the changes naturally occurring in the physical conditions, etc.) (in which I hope I may be wrong), I have chiefly had in my mind the effects of intercrossing. I subscribe to almost everything you say excepting the last short sentence. (296/4. The passage in question is as follows: "I have also attempted to show that the causes which have produced the separate species of one genus, of one family, or perhaps of one order, from a common ancestor, are not necessarily the same as those which have produced the separate orders, classes, and sub-kingdoms from more remote common ancestors. That all have been alike produced by 'descent with modification' from a few primitive types, the whole body of evidence clearly indicates; but while individual variation with Natural Selection is proved to be adequate for the production of the former, we have no proof and hardly any evidence that it is adequate to initiate those important divergences of type which characterise the latter." In this passage stress should be laid (as Mr. Wallace points out to us) on the word PROOF. He by no means asserts that the causes which have produced the species of a genus are inadequate to produce greater differences. His object is rather to urge the difference between proof and probability.)

As this note doesn't need a response, I want to express my genuine admiration for your article in the "Nineteenth Century." (296/1. "Nineteenth Century," January 1880, page 93, "On the Origin of Species and Genera.") You are truly skilled at the challenging art of clear explanation. It can't be emphasized enough that selecting from a single varying individual or just one varying organ is not enough. You've done an excellent job incorporating Allen's amazing research. (296/2. J.A. Allen, "On the Mammals and Winter Birds of East Florida, etc." ("Bull. Mus. Comp. Zoolog. Harvard," Volume II.) As always, you honor me more than I deserve. When I've discussed the extreme slowness of Natural Selection (296/3. Mr. Wallace makes a calculation based on Allen's results as to the very short period in which the formation of a race of birds differing 10 to 20 percent from the average in length of wing and strength of beak might conceivably be affected. He believes that the slowness of Natural Selection truly depends on the slowness of the changes naturally occurring in the physical conditions, etc.) (which I hope I'm wrong about), I've mainly been thinking about the effects of interbreeding. I agree with almost everything you say except for the last short sentence. (296/4. The passage in question is as follows: "I have also attempted to show that the causes which have produced the separate species of one genus, one family, or perhaps one order, from a common ancestor, are not necessarily the same as those which have produced the separate orders, classes, and sub-kingdoms from more remote common ancestors. That all have been equally produced by 'descent with modification' from a few primitive types, the entire body of evidence clearly indicates; but while individual variation with Natural Selection is proven to be sufficient for the production of the former, we have no proof and hardly any evidence that it is adequate to initiate those significant divergences of type which characterize the latter." In this passage, emphasis should be placed (as Mr. Wallace points out to us) on the word PROOF. He does not claim that the causes that have produced the species of a genus are inadequate to create greater differences. His aim is rather to highlight the distinction between proof and probability.)

LETTER 297. TO J.H. FABRE.

(297/1. A letter to M. Fabre is given in "Life and Letters," III., page 220, in which the suggestion is made of rotating the insect before a "homing" experiment occurs.)

(297/1. A letter to M. Fabre is given in "Life and Letters," III., page 220, in which the suggestion is made of rotating the insect before a "homing" experiment happens.)

Down, February 20th, 1880.

Down, February 20, 1880.

I thank you for your kind letter, and am delighted that you will try the experiment of rotation. It is very curious that such a belief should be held about cats in your country (297/2. M. Fabre had written from Serignan, Vaucluse: "Parmi la population des paysans de mon village, l'habitude est de faire tourner dans un sac le chat que l'on se propose de porter ailleurs, et dont on veut empecher le retour. J'ignore si cette pratique obtient du succes."), I never heard of anything of the kind in England. I was led, as I believe, to think of the experiment from having read in Wrangel's "Travels in Siberia" (297/3. Admiral Ferdinand Petrovich von Wrangell, "Le Nord de la Siberie, Voyage parmi les Peuplades de la Russie asiatique, etc." Paris, 1843.) of the wonderful power which the Samoyedes possess of keeping their direction in a fog whilst travelling in a tortuous line through broken ice. With respect to cats, I have seen an account that in Belgium there is a society which gives prizes to the cat which can soonest find its way home, and for this purpose they are carried to distant parts of the city.

I appreciate your kind letter and I'm thrilled that you will try the experiment of rotation. It’s quite interesting that such a belief exists about cats in your country (297/2. M. Fabre had written from Serignan, Vaucluse: "Among the peasant population of my village, the custom is to put the cat that you want to transport somewhere else into a bag to prevent it from returning. I don't know if this practice is successful."), as I’ve never heard of anything like that in England. I believe I thought of the experiment after reading in Wrangel's "Travels in Siberia" (297/3. Admiral Ferdinand Petrovich von Wrangell, "Le Nord de la Siberie, Voyage parmi les Peuplades de la Russie asiatique, etc." Paris, 1843.) about the amazing ability of the Samoyedes to keep their direction in a fog while traveling in a winding path through broken ice. Regarding cats, I read that in Belgium there is a society that awards prizes to the cat that can find its way home the fastest, and to do this, they are taken to far parts of the city.

Here would be a capital opportunity for trying rotation.

Here would be a great chance to try rotation.

I am extremely glad to hear that your book will probably be translated into English.

I’m really happy to hear that your book will likely be translated into English.

P.S.—I shall be much pleased to hear the result of your experiments.

P.S.—I would love to hear the outcome of your experiments.

LETTER 298. TO J.H. FABRE. Down, January 21st, 1881.

I am much obliged for your very interesting letter. Your results appear to me highly important, as they eliminate one means by which animals might perhaps recognise direction; and this, from what has been said about savages, and from our own consciousness, seemed the most probable means. If you think it worth while, you can of course mention my name in relation to this subject.

I really appreciate your fascinating letter. Your findings seem very significant to me, as they rule out one way that animals might recognize direction; and this, based on what’s been said about primitive people and our own awareness, seemed like the most likely method. If you think it's worth it, you can definitely mention my name regarding this topic.

Should you succeed in eliminating a sense of the magnetic currents of the earth, you would leave the field of investigation quite open. I suppose that even those who still believe that each species was separately created would admit that certain animals possess some sense by which they perceive direction, and which they use instinctively. On mentioning the subject to my son George, who is a mathematician and knows something about magnetism, he suggested making a very thin needle into a magnet; then breaking it into very short pieces, which would still be magnetic, and fastening one of these pieces with some cement on the thorax of the insect to be experimented on.

If you manage to get rid of the feeling of the Earth's magnetic currents, you would open up the field of research completely. I think even those who still believe that every species was created separately would agree that some animals have a way of sensing direction, which they use instinctively. When I brought this up with my son George, who is a mathematician and knows a bit about magnetism, he suggested taking a very thin needle and making it magnetic; then breaking it into very short pieces that would still be magnetic, and attaching one of those pieces with some glue to the thorax of the insect we want to experiment on.

He believes that such a little magnet, from its close proximity to the nervous system of the insect, would affect it more than would the terrestrial currents.

He thinks that such a small magnet, being so close to the insect's nervous system, would influence it more than the earth's currents would.

I have received your essay on Halictus (298/1. "Sur les Moeurs et la Parthenogese des Halictes" ("Ann. Sc. Nat." IX., 1879-80).), which I am sure that I shall read with much interest.

I got your essay on Halictus (298/1. "Sur les Moeurs et la Parthenogese des Halictes" ("Ann. Sc. Nat." IX., 1879-80).), and I'm sure I will read it with great interest.

LETTER 299. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(299/1. On April 9th, 1880, Mr. Huxley lectured at the Royal Institution on "The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species." The lecture was published in "Nature" and in Huxley's "Collected Essays," Volume II., page 227. Darwin's letter to Huxley on the subject is given in "Life and Letters," III., page 240; in Huxley's reply of May 10th ("Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," II., page 12) he writes: "I hope you do not imagine because I had nothing to say about 'Natural Selection' that I am at all weak of faith on that article...But the first thing seems to me to be to drive the fact of evolution into people's heads; when that is once safe, the rest will come easy.")

(299/1. On April 9th, 1880, Mr. Huxley gave a lecture at the Royal Institution on "The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species." The lecture was published in "Nature" and in Huxley's "Collected Essays," Volume II, page 227. Darwin's letter to Huxley on the topic is found in "Life and Letters," III, page 240; in Huxley's reply on May 10th ("Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," II, page 12), he writes: "I hope you don't think that because I had nothing to say about 'Natural Selection' I have any doubts about that concept...But the first thing that needs to happen is to get the fact of evolution into people's minds; once that's established, the rest will follow easily.")

Down, May 11th, 1880.

Down, May 11, 1880.

I had no intention to make you write to me, or expectation of your doing so; but your note has been so far "cheerier" (299/2. "You are the cheeriest letter-writer I know": Huxley to Darwin. See Huxley's "Life," II., page 12.) to me than mine could have been to you, that I must and will write again. I saw your motive for not alluding to Natural Selection, and quite agreed in my mind in its wisdom. But at the same time it occurred to me that you might be giving it up, and that anyhow you could not safely allude to it without various "provisos" too long to give in a lecture. If I think continuously on some half-dozen structures of which we can at present see no use, I can persuade myself that Natural Selection is of quite subordinate importance. On the other hand, when I reflect on the innumerable structures, especially in plants, which twenty years ago would have been called simply "morphological" and useless, and which are now known to be highly important, I can persuade myself that every structure may have been developed through Natural Selection. It is really curious how many out of a list of structures which Bronn enumerated, as not possibly due to Natural Selection because of no functional importance, can now be shown to be highly important. Lobed leaves was, I believe, one case, and only two or three days ago Frank showed me how they act in a manner quite sufficiently important to account for the lobing of any large leaf. I am particularly delighted at what you say about domestic dogs, jackals, and wolves, because from mere indirect evidence I arrived in "Varieties of Domestic Animals" at exactly the same conclusion (299/3. Mr. Darwin's view was that domestic dogs descend from more than one wild species.) with respect to the domestic dogs of Europe and North America. See how important in another way this conclusion is; for no one can doubt that large and small dogs are perfectly fertile together, and produce fertile mongrels; and how well this supports the Pallasian doctrine (299/4. See Letter 80.) that domestication eliminates the sterility almost universal between forms slowly developed in a state of nature.

I didn't mean to make you write to me, nor did I expect you to; but your note has been so much "cheerier" (299/2. "You are the cheeriest letter-writer I know": Huxley to Darwin. See Huxley's "Life," II., page 12.) than mine could have been to you, that I feel the need to write back. I understood your reason for not mentioning Natural Selection and completely agree with the wisdom of that choice. However, I also thought that you might be giving it up, and that you couldn't safely refer to it without a lot of "provisos" that would be too lengthy to include in a lecture. If I continuously think about some half-dozen structures that we currently see as having no purpose, I can convince myself that Natural Selection is relatively unimportant. On the flip side, when I consider the countless structures, especially in plants, that twenty years ago would have been labeled simply "morphological" and useless, and which are now recognized as highly significant, I can persuade myself that every structure may have evolved through Natural Selection. It's really fascinating how many structures from Bronn's list, which were thought to be unrelated to Natural Selection due to their lack of functional importance, can now be shown to be quite crucial. Lobed leaves, for example, are one case, and just a few days ago Frank demonstrated to me how they function in such an important way that it justifies the lobing of any large leaf. I'm especially thrilled about what you mentioned regarding domestic dogs, jackals, and wolves because I reached the exact same conclusion from just indirect evidence in "Varieties of Domestic Animals" (299/3. Mr. Darwin's view was that domestic dogs descend from more than one wild species.) regarding the domestic dogs of Europe and North America. Consider how significant this conclusion is in another respect; no one can deny that large and small dogs can interbreed perfectly and produce fertile mongrels, and how well this supports the Pallasian doctrine (299/4. See Letter 80.) that domestication eliminates the sterility that is almost universal between forms that have slowly developed in nature.

I humbly beg your pardon for bothering you with so long a note; but it is your own fault.

I sincerely apologize for bothering you with such a long note, but it's your fault.

Plants are splendid for making one believe in Natural Selection, as will and consciousness are excluded. I have lately been experimenting on such a curious structure for bursting open the seed-coats: I declare one might as well say that a pair of scissors or nutcrackers had been developed through external conditions as the structure in question. (299/5. The peg or heel in Cucurbita: see "Power of Movement in Plants" page 102.)

Plants are amazing for making people believe in Natural Selection, as will and consciousness don't play a role. I've recently been experimenting with this interesting way of breaking open seed coats: honestly, one could just as easily argue that a pair of scissors or nutcrackers evolved due to external conditions as that this particular structure did. (299/5. The peg or heel in Cucurbita: see "Power of Movement in Plants" page 102.)

LETTER 300. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 5th, 1880.

On reading over your excellent review (300/1. See "Nature," November 4th, 1880, page 1, a review of Volume I. of the publications of the "Challenger," to which Sir Wyville Thomson contributed a General Introduction.) with the sentence quoted from Sir Wyville Thomson, it seemed to me advisable, considering the nature of the publication, to notice "extreme variation" and another point. Now, will you read the enclosed, and if you approve, post it soon. If you disapprove, throw it in the fire, and thus add one more to the thousand kindnesses which you have done me. Do not write: I shall see result in next week's "Nature." Please observe that in the foul copy I had added a final sentence which I do not at first copy, as it seemed to me inferentially too contemptuous; but I have now pinned it to the back, and you can send it or not, as you think best,—that is, if you think any part worth sending. My request will not cost you much trouble—i.e. to read two pages, for I know that you can decide at once. I heartily enjoyed my talk with you on Sunday morning.

On reading your excellent review (300/1. See "Nature," November 4th, 1880, page 1, a review of Volume I. of the publications of the "Challenger," to which Sir Wyville Thomson contributed a General Introduction.), along with the sentence quoted from Sir Wyville Thomson, I thought it would be wise, given the nature of the publication, to address "extreme variation" and another point. Now, please read the enclosed, and if you like it, send it off soon. If you don't like it, just throw it in the fire, adding one more to the thousand kindnesses you've shown me. Don't write back; I'll check the outcome in next week's "Nature." Please note that in the rough draft, I had added a final sentence that I initially didn't include because it seemed a bit too dismissive. However, I've now attached it to the back, and you can decide whether to send it or not, depending on what you think is worth sharing. My request really won't take much of your time—just to read two pages, since I know you can decide quickly. I truly enjoyed our conversation on Sunday morning.

P.S.—If my manuscript appears too flat, too contemptuous, too spiteful, or too anything, I earnestly beseech you to throw it into the fire.

P.S.—If my manuscript seems too dull, too dismissive, too bitter, or anything else, I sincerely ask you to toss it into the fire.

LETTER 301. CHARLES DARWIN TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE."

(301/1. "Nature," November 11th, 1880, page 32.)

Down, November 5th, 1880.

Down, November 5, 1880.

Sir Wyville Thomson and Natural Selection.

I am sorry to find that Sir Wyville Thomson does not understand the principle of Natural Selection, as explained by Mr. Wallace and myself. If he had done so, he could not have written the following sentence in the Introduction to the Voyage of the "Challenger": "The character of the abyssal fauna refuses to give the least support to the theory which refers the evolution of species to extreme variation guided only by Natural Selection." This is a standard of criticism not uncommonly reached by theologians and metaphysicians, when they write on scientific subjects, but is something new as coming from a naturalist. Professor Huxley demurs to it in the last number of "Nature"; but he does not touch on the expression of extreme variation, nor on that of evolution being guided only by Natural Selection. Can Sir Wyville Thomson name any one who has said that the evolution of species depends only on Natural Selection? As far as concerns myself, I believe that no one has brought forward so many observations on the effects of the use and disuse of parts, as I have done in my "Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication"; and these observations were made for this special object. I have likewise there adduced a considerable body of facts, showing the direct action of external conditions on organisms; though no doubt since my books were published much has been learnt on this head. If Sir Wyville Thomson were to visit the yard of a breeder, and saw all his cattle or sheep almost absolutely true—that is, closely similar, he would exclaim: "Sir, I see here no extreme variation; nor can I find any support to the belief that you have followed the principle of selection in the breeding of your animals." From what I formerly saw of breeders, I have no doubt that the man thus rebuked would have smiled and said not a word. If he had afterwards told the story to other breeders, I greatly fear that they would have used emphatic but irreverent language about naturalists.

I’m sorry to see that Sir Wyville Thomson doesn’t understand the principle of Natural Selection as explained by Mr. Wallace and me. If he did, he wouldn't have written the following sentence in the Introduction to the Voyage of the "Challenger": "The character of the abyssal fauna refuses to give the least support to the theory that refers the evolution of species to extreme variation guided only by Natural Selection." This type of criticism is often seen from theologians and philosophers when discussing scientific topics, but it’s surprising to hear it from a naturalist. Professor Huxley disagrees in the latest issue of "Nature," but he doesn’t address the idea of extreme variation or the notion of evolution being guided solely by Natural Selection. Can Sir Wyville Thomson name anyone who has claimed that the evolution of species depends only on Natural Selection? As for me, I believe no one has presented as many observations on the effects of use and disuse of features as I have in my "Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," and these observations were made for that specific purpose. I’ve also provided a significant amount of evidence showing the direct influence of external conditions on organisms, although I’m sure much has been learned on this topic since the publication of my books. If Sir Wyville Thomson visited a breeder’s yard and saw all the cattle or sheep almost perfectly consistent—that is, very similar—he would say: "Sir, I see no extreme variation here; nor do I find any support for the belief that you’ve applied the principle of selection in breeding your animals." From my experience with breeders, I have no doubt that the person being criticized would have merely smiled and said nothing. If he later shared the story with other breeders, I greatly fear they would have reacted with strong but disrespectful remarks about naturalists.

(301/2. The following is the passage omitted by the advice of Huxley: see his "Life and Letters," II., page 14:—

"Perhaps it would have been wiser on my part to have remained quite silent, like the breeder; for, as Prof. Sedgwick remarked many years ago, in reference to the poor old Dean of York, who was never weary of inveighing against geologists, a man who talks about what he does not in the least understand, is invulnerable.")

"Maybe it would have been smarter for me to just stay silent, like the breeder; because, as Prof. Sedgwick pointed out many years ago, regarding the poor old Dean of York, who never tired of complaining about geologists, a person who talks about things they don’t understand at all is invincible."

LETTER 302. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(302/1. Part of this letter has been published in Mr. C. Barber's note on "Graft-Hybrids of the Sugar-Cane," in "The Sugar-Cane," November 1896.)

Down, January 1st, 1881.

Down, January 1, 1881.

I send the MS., but as far as I can judge by just skimming it, it will be of no use to you. It seems to bear on transitional forms. I feel sure that I have other and better cases, but I cannot remember where to look.

I’m sending the manuscript, but from what I can tell just by skimming it, I don’t think it will be useful to you. It appears to focus on transitional forms. I’m certain I have other and better examples, but I can’t remember where to find them.

I should have written to you in a few days on the following case. The Baron de Villa Franca wrote to me from Brazil about two years ago, describing new varieties of sugar-cane which he had raised by planting two old varieties in apposition. I believe (but my memory is very faulty) that I wrote that I could not believe in such a result, and attributed the new varieties to the soil, etc. I believe that I did not understand what he meant by apposition. Yesterday a packet of MS. arrived from the Brazilian Legation, with a letter in French from Dr. Glass, Director of the Botanic Gardens, describing fully how he first attempted grafting varieties of sugar-cane in various ways, and always failed, and then split stems of two varieties, bound them together and planted them, and then raised some new and very valuable varieties, which, like crossed plants, seem to grow with extra vigour, are constant, and apparently partake of the character of the two varieties. The Baron also sends me an attested copy from a number of Brazilian cultivators of the success of the plan of raising new varieties. I am not sure whether the Brazilian Legation wishes me to return the document, but if I do not hear in three or four days that they must be returned, they shall be sent to you, for they seem to me well deserving your consideration.

I should have written to you a few days ago about the following situation. The Baron de Villa Franca contacted me from Brazil about two years ago, explaining new types of sugarcane he had developed by planting two old varieties together. I think (but my memory isn't great) that I mentioned I didn't believe such a result was possible and credited the new varieties to the soil, etc. I also think I misunderstood what he meant by “apposition.” Yesterday, I received a packet of manuscripts from the Brazilian Legation, along with a letter in French from Dr. Glass, Director of the Botanic Gardens, detailing how he first tried grafting different sugarcane varieties in various ways but always failed. Then he split the stems of two varieties, bound them together, and planted them, leading to the development of some new and highly valuable varieties that, like hybrid plants, seem to grow with extra vigor, are stable, and apparently exhibit traits from both original varieties. The Baron also sent me a certified copy from several Brazilian farmers confirming the success of his method for creating new varieties. I'm not sure if the Brazilian Legation wants me to return the document, but if I don't hear back in three or four days that it must be sent back, I will forward it to you, as I believe it deserves your attention.

Perhaps if I had been contented with my hyacinth bulbs being merely bound together without any true adhesion or rather growth together, I should have succeeded like the old Dutchman.

Perhaps if I had been satisfied with my hyacinth bulbs just being tied together without any real connection or actual growth together, I would have succeeded like the old Dutchman.

There is a deal of superfluous verbiage in the documents, but I have marked with pencil where the important part begins. The attestations are in duplicate. Now, after reading them will you give me your opinion whether the main parts are worthy of publication in "Nature": I am inclined to think so, and it is good to encourage science in out-of-the-way parts of the world.

There’s a lot of unnecessary wording in the documents, but I’ve marked with a pencil where the important part starts. The statements are in duplicate. Now, after you read them, will you share your opinion on whether the main sections are worth publishing in "Nature"? I think they are, and it's important to promote science in remote areas of the world.

Keep this note till you receive the documents or hear from me. I wonder whether two varieties of wheat could be similarly treated? No, I suppose not—from the want of lateral buds. I was extremely interested by your abstract on suicide.

Keep this note until you receive the documents or hear from me. I wonder if two types of wheat could be treated the same way? No, I guess not—since they lack lateral buds. I found your summary on suicide really interesting.

LETTER 303. TO K. SEMPER. Down, February 6th, 1881.

Owing to all sorts of work, I have only just now finished reading your "Natural Conditions of Existence." (303/1. Semper's "Natural Conditions of Existence as they affect Animal Life" (International Science Series), 1881.) Although a book of small size, it contains an astonishing amount of matter, and I have been particularly struck with the originality with which you treat so many subjects, and at your scrupulous accuracy. In far the greater number of points I quite follow you in your conclusions, but I differ on some, and I suppose that no two men in the world would fully agree on so many different subjects. I have been interested on so many points, I can hardly say on which most. Perhaps as much on Geographical Distribution as on any other, especially in relation to M. Wagner. (No! no! about parasites interested me even more.) How strange that Wagner should have thought that I meant by struggle for existence, struggle for food. It is curious that he should not have thought of the endless adaptations for the dispersal of seeds and the fertilisation of flowers.

Because of all kinds of work, I’ve just now finished reading your "Natural Conditions of Existence." (303/1. Semper's "Natural Conditions of Existence as they affect Animal Life" (International Science Series), 1881.) Even though it’s a small book, it has an impressive amount of content, and I’ve been especially impressed by the originality with which you address so many topics, as well as your meticulous accuracy. In most areas, I completely agree with your conclusions, but I have some disagreements, and I guess no two people in the world would fully agree on so many different subjects. I’ve found many points interesting; it’s hard to pick just one. Perhaps I’m as interested in Geographical Distribution as in any other topic, especially regarding M. Wagner. (No! No! I was even more fascinated by parasites.) How odd that Wagner thought I meant struggle for existence as struggle for food. It’s strange that he didn’t consider the countless adaptations for the dispersal of seeds and the fertilization of flowers.

Again I was much interested about Branchipus and Artemia. (303/2. The reference is to Schmankewitsch's experiments, page 158: he kept Artemia salina in salt-water, gradually diluted with fresh-water until it became practically free from salt; the crustaceans gradually changed in the course of generations, until they acquired the characters of the genus Branchipus.) When I read imperfectly some years ago the original paper I could not avoid thinking that some special explanation would hereafter be found for so curious a case. I speculated whether a species very liable to repeated and great changes of conditions, might not acquire a fluctuating condition ready to be adapted to either conditions. With respect to Arctic animals being white (page 116 of your book) it might perhaps be worth your looking at what I say from Pallas' and my own observations in the "Descent of Man" (later editions) Chapter VIII., page 229, and Chapter XVIII., page 542.

Again, I was really intrigued by Branchipus and Artemia. (303/2. The reference is to Schmankewitsch's experiments, page 158: he kept Artemia salina in saltwater, gradually mixing it with freshwater until it was almost free of salt; the crustaceans gradually changed over generations until they took on the traits of the genus Branchipus.) When I read the original paper a few years ago, I couldn't help but think that there would eventually be a specific explanation for such an interesting case. I wondered if a species that frequently experiences significant changes in conditions might develop a fluctuating state that allows it to adapt to different situations. Regarding why Arctic animals are white (page 116 of your book), it might be worth checking out what I discuss based on Pallas' and my own observations in "The Descent of Man" (later editions), Chapter VIII, page 229, and Chapter XVIII, page 542.

I quite agree with what I gather to be your judgment, viz., that the direct action of the conditions of life on organisms, or the cause of their variability, is the most important of all subjects for the future. For some few years I have been thinking of commencing a set of experiments on plants, for they almost invariably vary when cultivated. I fancy that I see my way with the aid of continued self-fertilisation. But I am too old, and have not strength enough. Nevertheless the hope occasionally revives.

I completely agree with your view that the direct influence of life conditions on organisms, and the reasons behind their variability, is the most critical topic for the future. For the past few years, I’ve been considering starting a series of experiments on plants because they almost always change when cultivated. I believe I can make progress with ongoing self-fertilization. However, I feel too old and lacking the energy. Still, the hope does occasionally come back.

Finally let me thank you for the very kind manner in which you often refer to my works, and for the even still kinder manner in which you disagree with me.

Finally, let me thank you for the very kind way in which you often talk about my work, and for the even kinder way in which you disagree with me.

With cordial thanks for the pleasure and instruction which I have derived from your book, etc.

With heartfelt thanks for the enjoyment and knowledge I've gained from your book, etc.

LETTER 304. TO COUNT SAPORTA. Down, February 13th, 1881.

I received a week or two ago the work which you and Prof. Marion have been so kind as to send me. (304/1. Probably "L'Evolution du Regne vegetal," I. "Cryptogames," Saporta & Marion, Paris, 1881.) When it arrived I was much engaged, and this must be my excuse for not having sooner thanked you for it, and it will likewise account for my having as yet read only the preface.

I got the work that you and Prof. Marion kindly sent me a week or two ago. (304/1. Probably "L'Evolution du Regne vegetal," I. "Cryptogames," Saporta & Marion, Paris, 1881.) When it came, I was quite busy, and that’s why I haven’t thanked you for it sooner. It also explains why I’ve only read the preface so far.

But I now look forward with great pleasure to reading the whole immediately. If I then have any remarks worth sending, which is not very probable, I will write again. I am greatly pleased to see how boldly you express your belief in evolution, in the preface. I have sometimes thought that some of your countrymen have been a little timid in publishing their belief on this head, and have thus failed in aiding a good cause.

But I really look forward to reading the whole thing right away. If I have any comments worth sharing, which isn’t very likely, I’ll write again. I’m really happy to see how confidently you express your belief in evolution in the preface. I’ve sometimes thought that some of your fellow countrymen have been a bit hesitant in sharing their beliefs on this topic, and as a result, they’ve missed the chance to support a good cause.

LETTER 305. TO R.G. WHITEMAN. Down, May 5th, 1881.

In the first edition of the "Origin," after the sentence ending with the words "...insects in the water," I added the following sentence:—

In the first edition of the "Origin," after the sentence ending with the words "...insects in the water," I added this sentence:—

"Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by Natural Selection more and more aquatic in their structures and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." (305/1. See Letters 110 and 120.)

"Even in such an extreme case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors didn't already exist in the area, I can’t see why a species of bears couldn't be shaped by Natural Selection to become more and more aquatic in their structures and habits, with larger and larger mouths, until a creature as huge as a whale was produced." (305/1. See Letters 110 and 120.)

This sentence was omitted in the subsequent editions, owing to the advice of Prof. Owen, as it was liable to be misinterpreted; but I have always regretted that I followed this advice, for I still think the view quite reasonable.

This sentence was left out in later editions because of Prof. Owen's suggestion, as it could easily be misunderstood; however, I have always regretted taking this advice because I still find the perspective quite reasonable.

LETTER 306. TO A. HYATT. Down, May 8th, 1881.

I am much obliged for your kind gift of "The Genesis, etc." (306/1. "The Genesis of the Tertiary Species of Planorbis," in the "Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Anniversary Mem." 1880.), which I shall be glad to read, as the case has always seemed to me a very curious one. It is all the kinder in you to send me this book, as I am aware that you think that I have done nothing to advance the good cause of the Descent-theory. (306/2. The above caused me to write a letter expressing a feeling of regret and humiliation, which I hope is still preserved, for certainly such a feeling, caused undoubtedly by my writings, which dealt too exclusively with disagreements upon special points, needed a strong denial. I have used the Darwinian theory in many cases, especially in explaining the preservation of differences; and have denied its application only in the preservation of fixed and hereditary characteristics, which have become essentially homologous similarities. (Note by Prof. Hyatt.))

I really appreciate your thoughtful gift of "The Genesis, etc." (306/1. "The Genesis of the Tertiary Species of Planorbis," in the "Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Anniversary Mem." 1880.), and I'm looking forward to reading it, as I’ve always found the topic quite intriguing. It’s really kind of you to send me this book, especially since I know you believe I haven’t contributed anything to support the Descent theory. (306/2. This made me write a letter expressing regret and embarrassment, which I hope is still kept, because such feelings, definitely caused by my writings that focused too much on disagreements over specific issues, needed a strong rebuttal. I have utilized the Darwinian theory in many instances, particularly to explain the preservation of differences; and I’ve only rejected its application when it comes to the preservation of fixed and hereditary traits that have become fundamentally similar in structure. (Note by Prof. Hyatt.))

(306/3. We have ventured to quote the passage from Prof. Hyatt's reply, dated May 23rd, 1881:—

(306/3. We have taken the liberty to quote the passage from Prof. Hyatt's response, dated May 23, 1881:—

"You would think I was insincere, if I wrote you what I really felt with regard to what you have done for the theory of Descent. Perhaps this essay will lead you to a more correct view than you now have of my estimate, if I can be said to have any claim to make an estimate of your work in this direction. You will not take offence, however, if I tell you that your strongest supporters can hardly give you greater esteem and honour. I have striven to get a just idea of your theory, but no doubt have failed to convey this in my publications as it ought to be done."

"You might think I’m being insincere if I shared my true feelings about what you’ve done for the theory of Descent. Maybe this essay will help you see my perspective more clearly than you do now, if I even have the right to assess your work in this area. However, you shouldn’t take offense when I say that your biggest supporters can hardly hold you in more esteem and honor. I’ve tried to understand your theory properly, but I have no doubt that I haven’t managed to express it in my publications as well as I should have."

We find other equally strong and genuine expressions of respect in Prof. Hyatt's letters.)

LETTER 307. TO LORD FARRER.

(307/1. Mr. Graham's book, the "Creed of Science," is referred to in "Life and Letters," I., page 315, where an interesting letter to the author is printed. With regard to chance, Darwin wrote: "You have expressed my inward conviction, though far more clearly and vividly than I could have done, that the universe is not the result of chance.")

(307/1. Mr. Graham's book, the "Creed of Science," is mentioned in "Life and Letters," I., page 315, where an interesting letter to the author is included. Regarding chance, Darwin wrote: "You have summed up my inner belief, though much more clearly and vividly than I could have expressed, that the universe is not a product of chance.")

Down, August 28th, 1881.

Down, August 28, 1881.

I have been much interested by your letter, and am glad that you like Mr. Graham's book...(307/2. In Lord Farrer's letter of August 27th he refers to the old difficulty, in relation to design, of the existence of evil.)

I found your letter very interesting, and I'm glad to hear that you like Mr. Graham's book...(307/2. In Lord Farrer's letter from August 27th, he mentions the ongoing challenge regarding design and the existence of evil.)

Everything which I read now soon goes out of my head, and I had forgotten that he implies that my views explain the universe; but it is a most monstrous exaggeration. The more one thinks the more one feels the hopeless immensity of man's ignorance. Though it does make one proud to see what science has achieved during the last half-century. This has been brought vividly before my mind by having just read most of the proofs of Lubbock's Address for York (307/3. Lord Avebury was President of the British Association in 1881.), in which he will attempt to review the progress of all branches of science for the last fifty years.

Everything I read now quickly slips my mind, and I had forgotten that he suggests my views explain the universe; but that’s a huge exaggeration. The more you think about it, the more you realize the vastness of human ignorance. Still, it does make you feel proud to see what science has accomplished in the last fifty years. I was reminded of this after reading most of the proofs of Lubbock's Address for York (307/3. Lord Avebury was President of the British Association in 1881.), where he will attempt to review the progress of all branches of science in the last fifty years.

I entirely agree with what you say about "chance," except in relation to the variations of organic beings having been designed; and I imagine that Mr. Graham must have used "chance" in relation only to purpose in the origination of species. This is the only way I have used the word chance, as I have attempted to explain in the last two pages of my "Variation under Domestication."

I completely agree with what you say about "chance," except when it comes to the idea that the variations among living beings have been designed. I think Mr. Graham must have meant "chance" only in terms of purpose behind the creation of species. This is the only way I've used the term "chance," as I tried to clarify in the last two pages of my "Variation under Domestication."

On the other hand, if we consider the whole universe, the mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of chance—that is, without design or purpose. The whole question seems to me insoluble, for I cannot put much or any faith in the so-called intuitions of the human mind, which have been developed, as I cannot doubt, from such a mind as animals possess; and what would their convictions or intuitions be worth? There are a good many points on which I cannot quite follow Mr. Graham.

On the other hand, if we look at the entire universe, the mind struggles to see it as a result of chance—meaning, without design or purpose. This whole question seems unsolvable to me, because I can’t place much, if any, trust in the so-called intuitions of the human mind, which I believe have evolved from a mind similar to that of animals; and what value would their beliefs or intuitions have? There are several points where I can’t completely agree with Mr. Graham.

With respect to your last discussion, I dare say it contains very much truth; but I cannot see, as far as happiness is concerned, that it can apply to the infinite sufferings of animals—not only those of the body, but those of the mind—as when a mother loses her offspring or a male his female. If the view does not apply to animals, will it suffice for man? But you may well complain of this long and badly-expressed note in my dreadfully bad handwriting.

Regarding your last discussion, I must say it contains a lot of truth; however, I don’t think it applies to the endless suffering of animals—not just physical pain, but emotional pain as well—like when a mother loses her young or a male loses his mate. If this perspective doesn’t apply to animals, can it really be enough for humans? But I understand if you find this lengthy and poorly written note frustrating, given my terrible handwriting.

The death of my brother Erasmus is a very heavy loss to all of us in this family. He was so kind-hearted and affectionate. Nor have I ever known any one more pleasant. It was always a very great pleasure to talk with him on any subject whatever, and this I shall never do again. The clearness of his mind always seemed to me admirable. He was not, I think, a happy man, and for many years did not value life, though never complaining. I am so glad that he escaped very severe suffering during his last few days. I shall never see such a man again.

The death of my brother Erasmus is a huge loss for all of us in this family. He was incredibly kind and loving. I've never met anyone more enjoyable to be around. It was always a real pleasure to talk with him about anything, and I’ll never get to do that again. I always admired the clarity of his thoughts. He wasn't, I think, a truly happy person, and for many years he didn’t appreciate life, though he never complained. I’m so grateful that he avoided a lot of pain in his final days. I don’t think I will ever meet someone like him again.

Forgive me for scribbling this way, my dear Farrer.

Forgive me for writing like this, my dear Farrer.

LETTER 308. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(308/1. Romanes had reviewed Roux's "Struggle of Parts in the Organism" in "Nature," September 20th, 1881, page 505. This led to an attack by the Duke of Argyll (October 20th, page 581), followed by a reply by Romanes (October 27th, page 604), a rejoinder by the Duke (November 3rd, page 6), and finally by the letter of Romanes (November 10th, page 29) to which Darwin refers. The Duke's "flourish" is at page 7: "I wish Mr. Darwin's disciples would imitate a little of the dignified reticence of their master. He walks with a patient and a stately step along the paths of conscientious observation, etc., etc.")

(308/1. Romanes had reviewed Roux's "Struggle of Parts in the Organism" in "Nature," September 20th, 1881, page 505. This prompted an attack from the Duke of Argyll (October 20th, page 581), followed by a response from Romanes (October 27th, page 604), a counter by the Duke (November 3rd, page 6), and finally, a letter from Romanes (November 10th, page 29) that Darwin references. The Duke's "flourish" is on page 7: "I wish Mr. Darwin's followers would show a bit of the dignified restraint of their master. He walks with a patient and dignified step along the paths of careful observation, etc., etc.")

Down, November 12th, 1881.

Down, November 12, 1881.

I must write to say how very much I admire your letter in the last "Nature." I subscribe to every word that you say, and it could not be expressed more clearly or vigorously. After the Duke's last letter and flourish about me I thought it paltry not to say that I agreed with what you had said. But after writing two folio pages I find I could not say what I wished to say without taking up too much space; and what I had written did not please me at all, so I tore it up, and now by all the gods I rejoice that I did so, for you have put the case incomparably better than I had done or could do.

I have to write to say how much I admire your letter in the latest "Nature." I agree with everything you said, and it couldn't have been expressed more clearly or passionately. After the Duke's recent letter and his remarks about me, I thought it was petty not to express my agreement with your points. But after writing two pages, I realized I couldn't convey what I wanted without taking up too much space, and I wasn't happy with what I wrote, so I tossed it. Now, thank goodness I did, because you made the argument so much better than I ever could.

Moreover, I hate controversy, and it wastes much time, at least with a man who, like myself, can work for only a short time in a day. How in the world you get through all your work astonishes me.

Moreover, I hate drama, and it takes up so much time, especially for someone like me who can only work for a short amount of time each day. I’m really amazed at how you manage to get through all your work.

Now do not make me feel guilty by answering this letter, and losing some of your time.

Now, please don’t make me feel bad for you taking the time to reply to this letter.

You ought not to swear at Roux's book, which has led you into this controversy, for I am sure that your last letter was well worth writing—not that it will produce any effect on the Duke.

You shouldn't curse Roux's book, which got you into this controversy, because I’m sure your last letter was worth writing—even though it probably won't change anything with the Duke.

LETTER 309. TO J. JENNER WEIR.

(309/1. On December 27th, 1881, Mr. Jenner Weir wrote to Mr. Darwin: "After some hesitation in lieu of a Christmas card, I venture to give you the return of some observations on mules made in Spain during the last two years...It is a fact that the sire has the prepotency in the offspring, as has been observed by most writers on that subject, including yourself. The mule is more ass-like, and the hinny more horse-like, both in the respective lengths of the ears and the shape of the tail; but one point I have observed which I do not remember to have met with, and that is that the coat of the mule resembles that of its dam the mare, and that of the hinny its dam the ass, so that in this respect the prepotency of the sexes is reversed." The hermaphroditism in lepidoptera, referred to below, is said by Mr. Weir to occur notably in the case of the hybrids of Smerinthus populi-ocellatus.)

(309/1. On December 27th, 1881, Mr. Jenner Weir wrote to Mr. Darwin: "After some hesitation instead of sending a Christmas card, I thought I’d share the results of some observations on mules I made in Spain over the last two years... It’s a fact that the father has a dominant influence on the offspring, as most writers on this topic, including you, have noted. The mule is more similar to a donkey, while the hinny is more similar to a horse, particularly in the lengths of their ears and the shape of their tails. However, I noticed one point I don't recall encountering before: the mule’s coat resembles that of its mother, the mare, while the hinny’s coat resembles that of its mother, the donkey. So, in this regard, the dominant influence of the sexes is reversed." The hermaphroditism in butterflies, mentioned below, is stated by Mr. Weir to be particularly noticeable in the hybrids of Smerinthus populi-ocellatus.)

Down, December 29th, 1881.

Down, December 29, 1881.

I thank you for your "Christmas card," and heartily return your good wishes. What you say about the coats of mules is new to me, as is the statement about hermaphroditism in hybrid moths. This latter fact seems to me particularly curious; and to make a very wild hypothesis, I should be inclined to account for it by reversion to the primordial condition of the two sexes being united, for I think it certain that hybridism does lead to reversion.

I appreciate your "Christmas card" and sincerely wish you all the best in return. What you mentioned about mule coats is something I hadn't heard before, just like your point about hermaphroditism in hybrid moths. That fact is especially intriguing to me; and to venture a bold theory, I would suggest that it might be explained by a return to the original state where the two sexes were combined since I believe it's clear that hybridism can lead to such reversions.

I keep fairly well, but have not much strength, and feel very old.

I’m doing okay, but I don’t have much strength and feel pretty old.

LETTER 310. TO R. MELDOLA. Down, February 2nd, 1882.

I am very sorry that I can add nothing to my very brief notice, without reading again Weismann's work and getting up the whole subject by reading my own and other books, and for so much labour I have not strength. I have now been working at other subjects for some years, and when a man grows as old as I am, it is a great wrench to his brain to go back to old and half-forgotten subjects. You would not readily believe how often I am asked questions of all kinds, and quite lately I have had to give up much time to do a work, not at all concerning myself, but which I did not like to refuse. I must, however, somewhere draw the line, or my life will be a misery to me.

I’m really sorry that I can’t add anything to my very brief note without rereading Weismann's work and diving back into the whole subject by looking through my own books and others, and I just don’t have the energy for that much effort. I’ve been focused on different topics for several years now, and when you get as old as I am, it’s a huge mental challenge to revisit old and half-forgotten subjects. You wouldn’t believe how often I get asked all kinds of questions, and just recently, I’ve had to dedicate a lot of time to work that doesn’t directly involve me but which I didn’t want to turn down. I need to set some boundaries, though, or I’ll end up making my life miserable.

I have read your preface, and it seems to me excellent. (310/1. "Studies in the Theory of Descent." By A. Weismann. Translated and Edited by Raphael Meldola; with a Prefatory Notice by C. Darwin and a Translator's Preface. See Letter 291.) I am sorry in many ways, including the honour of England as a scientific country, that your translation has as yet sold badly. Does the publisher or do you lose by it? If the publisher, though I shall be sorry for him, yet it is in the way of business; but if you yourself lose by it, I earnestly beg you to allow me to subscribe a trifle, viz., ten guineas, towards the expense of this work, which you have undertaken on public grounds.

I’ve read your preface, and I think it's excellent. (310/1. "Studies in the Theory of Descent." By A. Weismann. Translated and Edited by Raphael Meldola; with a Prefatory Notice by C. Darwin and a Translator's Preface. See Letter 291.) I’m really sorry, not just for the sake of England's reputation as a scientific nation, but also because your translation hasn’t sold well so far. Is it the publisher or you that takes the hit? If it’s the publisher, that’s just part of business, but if it’s you who suffers, I sincerely ask you to let me contribute a small amount, specifically ten guineas, to help cover the costs of this important work you’re doing for the public.

LETTER 311. TO W. HORSFALL. Down, February 8th, 1882.

In the succession of the older Formations the species and genera of trilobites do change, and then they all die out. To any one who believes that geologists know the dawn of life (i.e., formations contemporaneous with the first appearance of living creatures on the earth) no doubt the sudden appearance of perfect trilobites and other organisms in the oldest known life-bearing strata would be fatal to evolution. But I for one, and many others, utterly reject any such belief. Already three or four piles of unconformable strata are known beneath the Cambrian; and these are generally in a crystalline condition, and may once have been charged with organic remains.

In the history of earlier formations, the species and genera of trilobites do evolve, and then they all go extinct. For anyone who thinks that geologists understand the beginning of life (meaning formations that coincide with the first appearance of living creatures on Earth), the sudden emergence of fully developed trilobites and other organisms in the oldest known life-bearing layers would seem to contradict evolution. However, I, along with many others, completely dismiss such a belief. There are already three or four sets of unconformable layers identified beneath the Cambrian; these are usually in a crystalline state and may have once contained organic material.

With regard to animals and plants, the locomotive spores of some algae, furnished with cilia, would have been ranked with animals if it had not been known that they developed into algae.

With regard to animals and plants, the moving spores of some algae, equipped with cilia, would have been considered animals if it weren't known that they developed into algae.

LETTER 312. TO JOHN COLLIER. Down, February 16th, 1882.

LETTER 312. TO JOHN COLLIER. Down, February 16, 1882.

I must thank you for the gift of your Art Primer, which I have read with much pleasure. Parts were too technical for me who could never draw a line, but I was greatly interested by the whole of the first part. I wish that you could explain why certain curved lines and symmetrical figures give pleasure. But will not your brother artists scorn you for showing yourself so good an evolutionist? Perhaps they will say that allowance must be made for him, as he has allied himself to so dreadful a man as Huxley. This reminds me that I have just been reading the last volume of essays. By good luck I had not read that on Priestley (312/1. "Science and Culture, and other Essays": London, 1881. The fifth Essay is on Joseph Priestley (page 94).), and it strikes me as the most splendid essay which I ever read. That on automatism (312/2. Essay IX. (page 199) is entitled "On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and its history.") is wonderfully interesting: more is the pity, say I, for if I were as well armed as Huxley I would challenge him to a duel on this subject. But I am a deal too wise to do anything of the kind, for he would run me through the body half a dozen times with his sharp and polished rapier before I knew where I was. I did not intend to have scribbled all this nonsense, but only to have thanked you for your present.

I want to thank you for the gift of your Art Primer, which I read with a lot of enjoyment. Some parts were a bit too technical for me since I can’t draw a line, but I was really interested in the entire first part. I wish you could explain why certain curved lines and symmetrical shapes are pleasing. But won’t your fellow artists look down on you for being such a good evolutionist? They might say we have to cut him some slack since he’s teamed up with such a controversial figure like Huxley. This reminds me that I've just finished reading the last volume of essays. Luckily, I hadn’t read the one on Priestley, and I think it’s the best essay I’ve ever read. The one on automatism is fascinating; it’s a shame, in my opinion, because if I were as well-prepared as Huxley, I'd challenge him to a duel on this topic. But I'm way too smart to do anything like that, because he would definitely run me through with his sharp, polished sword before I even realized what was happening. I didn’t mean to ramble on like this, but I just wanted to thank you for your gift.

Everybody whom I have seen and who has seen your picture of me is delighted with it. I shall be proud some day to see myself suspended at the Linnean Society. (312/3. The portrait painted by Mr. Collier hangs in the meeting-room of the Linnean Society.)

Everybody I've talked to who has seen your picture of me loves it. I’ll be proud one day to see myself displayed at the Linnean Society. (312/3. The portrait painted by Mr. Collier hangs in the meeting-room of the Linnean Society.)

CHAPTER 1.VI.—GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, 1843-1867.

LETTER 313. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Tuesday {December 12th, 1843}.

I am very much obliged to you for your interesting letter. I have long been very anxious, even for as short a sketch as you have kindly sent me of the botanical geography of the southern hemisphere. I shall be most curious to see your results in detail. From my entire ignorance of Botany, I am sorry to say that I cannot answer any of the questions which you ask me. I think I mention in my "Journal" that I found my old friend the southern beech (I cannot say positively which species), on the mountain-top, in southern parts of Chiloe and at level of sea in lat. 45 deg, in Chonos Archipelago. Would not the southern end of Chiloe make a good division for you? I presume, from the collection of Brydges and Anderson, Chiloe is pretty well-known, and southward begins a terra incognita. I collected a few plants amongst the Chonos Islands. The beech being found here and peat being found here, and general appearance of landscape, connects the Chonos Islands and T. del Fuego. I saw the Alerce (313/1. "Alerse" is the local name of a South American timber, described in Capt. King's "Voyages of the 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,'" page 281, and rather doubtfully identified with Thuja tetragona, Hook. ("Flora Antarctica," page 350.)) on mountains of Chiloe (on the mainland it grows to an enormous size, and I always believed Alerce and Araucaria imbricata to be identical), but I am ashamed to say I absolutely forget all about its appearance. I saw some Juniper-like bush in T. del Fuego, but can tell you no more about it, as I presume that you have seen Capt. King's collection in Mr. Brown's possession, provisionally for the British Museum. I fear you will be much disappointed in my few plants: an ignorant person cannot collect; and I, moreover, lost one, the first, and best set of the Alpine plants. On the other hand, I hope the Galapagos plants (313/2. See "Life and Letters," II., pages 20, 21, for Sir J.D. Hooker's notes on the beginning of his friendship with Mr. Darwin, and for the latter's letter on the Galapagos plants being placed in Hooker's hands.) (judging from Henslow's remarks) will turn out more interesting than you expect. Pray be careful to observe, if I ever mark the individual islands of the Galapagos Islands, for the reasons you will see in my "Journal." Menzies and Cumming were there, and there are some plants (I think Mr. Bentham told me) at the Horticultural Society and at the British Museum. I believe I collected no plants at Ascension, thinking it well-known.

I really appreciate your interesting letter. I've been quite eager to see even a brief overview of the botanical geography of the southern hemisphere that you kindly sent me. I'm looking forward to checking out your detailed results. Unfortunately, due to my complete lack of knowledge in Botany, I regret to say that I can't answer any of the questions you've asked me. I think I mentioned in my "Journal" that I found my old friend, the southern beech (though I'm not sure which species), on the mountaintop in the southern parts of Chiloe and at sea level in latitude 45 degrees in the Chonos Archipelago. Wouldn't the southern end of Chiloe be a good boundary for you? I assume, based on the collections of Brydges and Anderson, that Chiloe is pretty well-known, and that beyond it lies an unknown land. I collected a few plants among the Chonos Islands. The presence of the beech and peat, along with the overall landscape, connects the Chonos Islands and Tierra del Fuego. I saw the Alerce on the mountains of Chiloe (on the mainland, it grows to an enormous size, and I always thought Alerce and Araucaria imbricata were the same), but I’m embarrassed to admit I completely forget what it looks like. I spotted some juniper-like bushes in Tierra del Fuego, but I can't tell you much about them since I assume you've seen Captain King's collection with Mr. Brown, provisionally for the British Museum. I worry you might be disappointed with my few plants—an uninformed person can't collect properly; plus, I lost one, the first and best set of the alpine plants. On the bright side, I hope the Galapagos plants (judging by Henslow's comments) will turn out to be more interesting than you expect. Please be sure to note if I ever specify the individual islands of the Galapagos, for the reasons you will find in my "Journal." Menzies and Cumming were there, and I think Mr. Bentham told me there are some plants at the Horticultural Society and the British Museum. I believe I collected no plants at Ascension, thinking it was already well-known.

Is not the similarity of plants of Kerguelen Land and southern S. America very curious? Is there any instance in the northern hemisphere of plants being similar at such great distances? With thanks for your letter and for your having undertaken my small collection of plants,

Isn't it interesting how similar the plants of Kerguelen Land and southern South America are? Is there any example in the northern hemisphere of plants being similar over such long distances? Thanks for your letter and for taking on my small collection of plants,

Believe me, my dear Sir, Yours very truly, C. DARWIN.

Believe me, my dear Sir, Yours truly, C. DARWIN.

Do remember my prayer, and write as well for botanical ignoramuses as for great botanists. There is a paper of Carmichael (313/3. "Some Account of the Island of Tristan da Cunha and of its Natural Productions."—"Linn. Soc. Trans." XII., 1818, page 483.) on Tristan d'Acunha, which from the want of general remarks and comparison, I found {torn out} to me a dead letter.—I presume you will include this island in your views of the southern hemisphere.

Do remember my prayer, and write for both those who know nothing about plants and those who are experts. There's a paper by Carmichael (313/3. "Some Account of the Island of Tristan da Cunha and of its Natural Productions."—"Linn. Soc. Trans." XII., 1818, page 483.) on Tristan da Cunha, which, due to its lack of general comments and comparisons, I found {torn out} to be useless. I assume you will consider this island in your perspective of the southern hemisphere.

P.S.—I have been looking at my poor miserable attempt at botanical-landscape-remarks, and I see that I state that the species of beech which is least common in T. del Fuego is common in the forest of Central Chiloe. But I will enclose for you this one page of my rough journal.

P.S.—I've been reviewing my unfortunate attempt at botanical landscape notes, and I realize that I mentioned the species of beech that is rare in T. del Fuego is actually common in the forests of Central Chiloe. But I'll include this one page from my rough journal for you.

LETTER 314. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 31st (1844).

LETTER 314. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 31, 1844.

I have been a shameful time in returning your documents, but I have been very busy scientifically, and unscientifically in planting. I have been exceedingly interested in the details about the Galapagos Islands. I need not say that I collected blindly, and did not attempt to make complete series, but just took everything in flower blindly. The flora of the summits and bases of the islands appear wholly different; it may aid you in observing whether the different islands have representative species filling the same places in the economy of nature, to know that I collected plants from the lower and dry region in all the islands, i.e., in the Chatham, Charles, James, and Albemarle (the least on the latter); and that I was able to ascend into the high and damp region only in James and Charles Islands; and in the former I think I got every plant then in flower. Please bear this in mind in comparing the representative species. (You know that Henslow has described a new Opuntia from the Galapagos.) Your observations on the distribution of large mundane genera have interested me much; but that was not the precise point which I was curious to ascertain; it has no necessary relation to size of genus (though perhaps your statements will show that it has). It was merely this: suppose a genus with ten or more species, inhabiting the ten main botanical regions, should you expect that all or most of these ten species would have wide ranges (i.e. were found in most parts) in their respective countries? (314/1. This point is discussed in a letter in "Life and Letters," Volume II., page 25, but not, we think in the "Origin"; for letters on large genera containing many varieties see "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 102-7, also in the "Origin," Edition I., page 53, Edition VI., page 44. In a letter of April 5th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker gave his opinion: "On the whole I believe that many individual representative species of large genera have wide ranges, but I do not consider the fact as one of great value, because the proportion of such species having a wide range is not large compared with other representative species of the same genus whose limits are confined."

I've taken a shamefully long time to return your documents, but I’ve been very busy with scientific work and also with planting. I’ve become really interested in the details about the Galapagos Islands. I don’t need to mention that I collected samples without a specific plan and didn’t aim to create complete series, but instead gathered everything in bloom. The plant life at the high altitudes and the lower regions of the islands seems completely different; it might help you see if different islands have similar species filling the same roles in nature if you know that I collected plants from the lower and dry regions in all the islands, including Chatham, Charles, James, and Albemarle (the least from the latter); I was only able to explore the high and moist areas on James and Charles Islands, and I think I gathered every plant that was in bloom at that time on the former. Please keep this in mind when comparing the representative species. (You know that Henslow has described a new Opuntia from the Galapagos.) Your notes on the distribution of large genera have intrigued me; however, that wasn’t exactly what I was curious about. It doesn’t necessarily relate to the size of the genus (though maybe your observations will indicate otherwise). My question was simply this: if a genus contains ten or more species across the ten main botanical regions, would you expect that all or most of these ten species would have wide ranges (meaning they are found in most areas) in their respective countries? (314/1. This point is discussed in a letter in "Life and Letters," Volume II., page 25, but we don’t think it’s covered in the "Origin"; for references to large genera with many varieties, see "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 102-7, also in the "Origin," Edition I., page 53, Edition VI., page 44. In a letter dated April 5th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker expressed his view: "Overall, I believe that many individual representative species of large genera have wide ranges, but I don’t view this fact as particularly significant, because the proportion of such species with wide ranges is not large compared to other representative species of the same genus with more limited distributions."

It may be noted that in large genera the species often have small ranges ("Origin," Edition VI., page 45), and large genera are more commonly wide-ranging than the reverse.) To give an example, the genus Felis is found in every country except Australia, and the individual species generally range over thousands of miles in their respective countries; on the other hand, no genus of monkey ranges over so large a part of the world, and the individual species in their respective countries seldom range over wide spaces. I suspect (but am not sure) that in the genus Mus (the most mundane genus of all mammifers) the individual species have not wide ranges, which is opposed to my query.

It’s important to note that in large genera, species often have small ranges ("Origin," Edition VI., page 45), and large genera tend to cover more ground than the opposite. For example, the genus Felis is found in every country except Australia, and the individual species typically range over thousands of miles within their countries. In contrast, no monkey genus covers such a large part of the world, and the individual species rarely span wide areas in their respective countries. I suspect (but I'm not entirely sure) that in the genus Mus (the most ordinary genus of all mammals), the individual species don't have wide ranges, which contradicts my inquiry.

I fancy, from a paper by Don, that some genera of grasses (i.e. Juncus or Juncaceae) are widely diffused over the world, and certainly many of their species have very wide ranges—in short, it seems that my question is whether there is any relation between the ranges of genera and of individual species, without any relation to the size of the genera. It is evident a genus might be widely diffused in two ways: 1st, by many different species, each with restricted ranges; and 2nd, by many or few species with wide ranges. Any light which you could throw on this I should be very much obliged for. Thank you most kindly, also, for your offer in a former letter to consider any other points; and at some future day I shall be most grateful for a little assistance, but I will not be unmerciful.

I think, based on a paper by Don, that some types of grasses (like Juncus or Juncaceae) are spread out all over the world, and definitely many of their species have very broad distributions—in short, my question is whether there's any connection between the distribution of genera and that of individual species, regardless of the size of the genera. It's clear that a genus could be widely distributed in two ways: 1st, by having many different species, each with limited ranges; and 2nd, by having many or just a few species with extensive ranges. Any insight you could provide on this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much, too, for your earlier offer to discuss any other topics; at some point in the future, I would be really thankful for a bit of help, but I won’t be demanding.

Swainson has remarked (and Westwood contradicted) that typical genera have wide ranges: Waterhouse (without knowing these previous remarkers) made to me the same observation: I feel a laudable doubt and disinclination to believe any statement of Swainson; but now Waterhouse remarks it, I am curious on the point. There is, however, so much vague in the meaning of "typical forms," and no little ambiguity in the mere assertion of "wide ranges" (for zoologists seldom go into strict and disagreeable arithmetic, like you botanists so wisely do) that I feel very doubtful, though some considerations tempt me to believe in this remark. Here again, if you can throw any light, I shall be much obliged. After your kind remarks I will not apologise for boring you with my vague queries and remarks.

Swainson has noted (and Westwood disagreed) that typical genera tend to have broad ranges. Waterhouse (unaware of these earlier comments) made the same observation to me. I have a reasonable skepticism and reluctance to trust anything Swainson says; however, now that Waterhouse has pointed it out, I’m curious about it. That said, the term "typical forms" is quite vague, and there's a lot of ambiguity in simply claiming "wide ranges" (since zoologists rarely dive into strict and unpleasant calculations, as you botanists wisely do), which makes me quite unsure. Still, some factors make me inclined to consider this remark. If you can shed any light on this, I would greatly appreciate it. After your thoughtful comments, I won’t apologize for bothering you with my uncertain questions and thoughts.

LETTER 315. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 25th {1844}. Happy Christmas to you.

LETTER 315. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 25th {1844}. Merry Christmas to you.

(315/1. The following letter refers to notes by Sir J.D. Hooker which we have not seen. Though we are therefore unable to make clear many points referred to, the letter seems to us on the whole so interesting that it is printed with the omission of only one unimportant sentence.

(315/1. The following letter mentions notes by Sir J.D. Hooker that we haven't seen. Since we can't clarify many of the points discussed, the letter still strikes us as interesting enough to be published, with just one minor sentence omitted.

The subjects dealt with in the letter are those which were occupying Hooker's attention in relation to his "Flora Antarctica" (1844).)

The topics discussed in the letter are the ones that Hooker was focused on regarding his "Flora Antarctica" (1844).

I must thank you once again for all your documents, which have interested me very greatly and surprised me. I found it very difficult to charge my head with all your tabulated results, but this I perfectly well know is in main part due to that head not being a botanical one, aided by the tables being in MS.; I think, however, to an ignoramus, they might be made clearer; but pray mind, that this is very different from saying that I think botanists ought to arrange their highest results for non-botanists to understand easily. I will tell you how, for my individual self, I should like to see the results worked out, and then you can judge, whether this be advisable for the botanical world.

I want to thank you again for all your documents, which have really interested and surprised me. I found it quite challenging to wrap my head around all your data, but I know that's mainly because I'm not a botanist, and the tables are in manuscript form; however, I think they could be made clearer for someone who's not knowledgeable in the field. But please note, this is very different from saying that I believe botanists should present their top results in a way that's easy for non-botanists to understand. I'll share how I would personally like to see the results presented, and then you can decide if this would be a good idea for the botanical community.

Looking at the globe, the Auckland and Campbell I., New Zealand, and Van Diemen's Land so evidently are geographically related, that I should wish, before any comparison was made with far more distant countries, to understand their floras, in relation to each other; and the southern ones to the northern temperate hemisphere, which I presume is to every one an almost involuntary standard of comparison. To understand the relation of the floras of these islands, I should like to see the group divided into a northern and southern half, and to know how many species exist in the latter—

Looking at the globe, it’s clear that Auckland and Campbell Island in New Zealand and Van Diemen's Land are geographically related. Before comparing them to much more distant countries, I would like to understand their plant life in relation to each other, and how the southern regions compare to the northern temperate hemisphere, which I assume is a standard point of reference for everyone. To grasp the relationship between the plant life of these islands, I would like to see the group divided into a northern and southern half and find out how many species exist in the latter—

1. Belonging to genera confined to Australia, Van Diemen's Land and north New Zealand.

1. Belonging to groups found only in Australia, Tasmania, and northern New Zealand.

2. Belonging to genera found only on the mountains of Australia, Van Diemen's Land, and north New Zealand.

2. Belonging to genera that are only found in the mountains of Australia, Van Diemen's Land, and northern New Zealand.

3. Belonging to genera of distribution in many parts of the world (i.e., which tell no particular story).

3. Belonging to groups found in many parts of the world (i.e., which don't tell a specific story).

4. Belonging to genera found in the northern hemisphere and not in the tropics; or only on mountains in the tropics.

4. Belonging to genera that are found in the northern hemisphere and not in the tropics; or only on mountains in the tropics.

I daresay all this (as far as present materials serve) could be extracted from your tables, as they stand; but to any one not familiar with the names of plants, this would be difficult. I felt particularly the want of not knowing which of the genera are found in the lowland tropics, in understanding the relation of the Antarctic with the Arctic floras.

I believe all this (based on the current materials available) could be taken from your tables as they are; however, for someone not familiar with the names of plants, this would be challenging. I especially felt the lack of knowing which genera are found in the lowland tropics, in understanding the connection between the Antarctic and Arctic floras.

If the Fuegian flora was treated in the analogous way (and this would incidentally show how far the Cordillera are a high-road of genera), I should then be prepared far more easily and satisfactorily to understand the relations of Fuegia with the Auckland Islands, and consequently with the mountains of Van Diemen's Land. Moreover, the marvellous facts of their intimate botanical relation (between Fuegia and the Auckland Islands, etc.) would stand out more prominently, after the Auckland Islands had been first treated of under the purely geographical relation of position. A triple division such as yours would lead me to suppose that the three places were somewhat equally distant, and not so greatly different in size: the relation of Van Diemen's Land seems so comparatively small, and that relation being in its alpine plants, makes me feel that it ought only to be treated of as a subdivision of the large group, including Auckland, Campbell, New Zealand...

If the Fuegian flora was examined in a similar way (which would also demonstrate how much the Cordillera serves as a pathway for different plant genera), I would then be much better equipped to understand the connections between Fuegia, the Auckland Islands, and the mountains of Van Diemen's Land. Furthermore, the incredible facts about their close botanical relationship (between Fuegia and the Auckland Islands, etc.) would be even clearer after analyzing the Auckland Islands from a purely geographical standpoint. A three-part division like yours would suggest that the three locations are somewhat equally distant from each other and not so vastly different in size: the connection with Van Diemen's Land seems relatively minor, and since that connection relates to its alpine plants, I feel it should only be discussed as a subdivision of the larger group that includes Auckland, Campbell, and New Zealand...

I think a list of the genera, common to Fuegia on the one hand and on the other to Campbell, etc., and to the mountains of Van Diemen's Land or New Zealand (but not found in the lowland temperate, and southern tropical parts of South America and Australia, or New Zealand), would prominently bring out, at the same time, the relation between these Antarctic points one with another, and with the northern or Arctic regions.

I believe that a list of the genera common to Fuegia, Campbell, and the mountains of Van Diemen's Land or New Zealand (but not found in the lowland temperate or southern tropical areas of South America, Australia, or New Zealand) would clearly highlight the connections between these Antarctic locations and their relationships with the northern or Arctic regions.

In Article III. is it meant to be expressed, or might it not be understood by this article, that the similarity of the distant points in the Antarctic regions was as close as between distant points in the Arctic regions? I gather this is not so. You speak of the southern points of America and Australia, etc., being "materially approximated," and this closer proximity being correlative with a greater similarity of their plants: I find on the globe, that Van Diemen's Land and Fuegia are only about one-fifth nearer than the whole distance between Port Jackson and Concepcion in Chile; and again, that Campbell Island and Fuegia are only one-fifth nearer than the east point of North New Zealand and Concepcion. Now do you think in such immense distances, both over open oceans, that one-fifth less distance, say 4,000 miles instead of 5,000, can explain or throw much light on a material difference in the degree of similarity in the floras of the two regions?

In Article III, is it meant to suggest, or could it be understood from this article, that the similarity of distant points in the Antarctic regions is as close as that between distant points in the Arctic regions? I don't think that’s the case. You mention that the southern points of America and Australia, etc., being "materially approximated," and that this closer proximity relates to a greater similarity in their plants. Looking at the globe, I see that Van Diemen's Land and Fuegia are only about one-fifth closer than the entire distance between Port Jackson and Concepcion in Chile; similarly, Campbell Island and Fuegia are only one-fifth closer than the eastern point of North New Zealand and Concepcion. Do you really think that in such vast distances, across open oceans, that a one-fifth shorter distance—say 4,000 miles instead of 5,000—can clarify or shed much light on a significant difference in the degree of similarity in the floras of the two regions?

I trust you will work out the New Zealand flora, as you have commenced at end of letter: is it not quite an original plan? and is it not very surprising that New Zealand, so much nearer to Australia than South America, should have an intermediate flora? I had fancied that nearly all the species there were peculiar to it. I cannot but think you make one gratuitous difficulty in ascertaining whether New Zealand ought to be classed by itself, or with Australia or South America—namely, when you seem (bottom of page 7 of your letter) to say that genera in common indicate only that the external circumstances for their life are suitable and similar. (315/2. On December 30th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker replied, "Nothing was further from my intention than to have written anything which would lead one to suppose that genera common to two places indicate a similarity in the external circumstances under which they are developed, though I see I have given you excellent grounds for supposing that such were my opinions.") Surely, cannot an overwhelming mass of facts be brought against such a proposition? Distant parts of Australia possess quite distinct species of marsupials, but surely this fact of their having the same marsupial genera is the strongest tie and plainest mark of an original (so-called) creative affinity over the whole of Australia; no one, now, will (or ought) to say that the different parts of Australia have something in their external conditions in common, causing them to be pre-eminently suitable to marsupials; and so on in a thousand instances. Though each species, and consequently genus, must be adapted to its country, surely adaptation is manifestly not the governing law in geographical distribution. Is this not so? and if I understand you rightly, you lessen your own means of comparison—attributing the presence of the same genera to similarity of conditions.

I trust you'll figure out the New Zealand flora, as you started at the end of the letter. Isn’t it quite an original plan? And isn’t it surprising that New Zealand, which is so much closer to Australia than to South America, has an intermediate flora? I had thought that almost all the species there were unique to it. I can’t help but think you create an unnecessary challenge in figuring out whether New Zealand should be classified on its own or with Australia or South America—specifically, when you seem (at the bottom of page 7 of your letter) to suggest that shared genera only indicate that the conditions for their survival are suitable and similar. (315/2. On December 30th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker replied, "Nothing was further from my intention than to have written anything which would lead one to suppose that genera common to two places indicate a similarity in the external circumstances under which they are developed, though I see I have given you excellent grounds for supposing that such were my opinions.") Surely, can’t we present a compelling collection of facts against such a claim? Different regions of Australia have quite distinct species of marsupials, but the fact that they share the same marsupial genera is the strongest link and clearest indicator of a so-called original creative relationship throughout Australia. No one, now, will (or should) argue that various areas of Australia share common external conditions that make them particularly suitable for marsupials, and this applies in countless cases. While each species, and therefore each genus, must be adapted to its region, it’s clear that adaptation is not the primary principle governing geographical distribution. Isn’t that true? And if I understand you correctly, you’re limiting your own means of comparison by attributing the presence of the same genera to similar conditions.

You will groan over my very full compliance with your request to write all I could on your tables, and I have done it with a vengeance: I can hardly say how valuable I must think your results will be, when worked out, as far as the present knowledge and collections serve.

You will complain about how thoroughly I've followed your request to write everything I could on your tables, and I've done it extensively: I can hardly express how valuable I believe your results will be once they're finalized, given the current knowledge and resources available.

Now for some miscellaneous remarks on your letter: thanks for the offer to let me see specimens of boulders from Cockburn Island; but I care only for boulders, as an indication of former climate: perhaps Ross will give some information...

Now for a few random thoughts about your letter: thanks for offering to show me samples of boulders from Cockburn Island; however, I'm mostly interested in boulders as signs of past climate: maybe Ross will share some insights...

Watson's paper on the Azores (315/3. H.C. Watson, "London Journal of Botany," 1843-44.) has surprised me much; do you not think it odd, the fewness of peculiar species, and their rarity on the alpine heights? I wish he had tabulated his results; could you not suggest to him to draw up a paper of such results, comparing these Islands with Madeira? surely does not Madeira abound with peculiar forms?

Watson's paper on the Azores (315/3. H.C. Watson, "London Journal of Botany," 1843-44.) has really surprised me; don't you find it strange how few unique species there are and how rare they are in the high mountains? I wish he had organized his findings into a table; could you suggest to him that he create a paper with these results, comparing these Islands to Madeira? Doesn't Madeira have a lot of unique forms?

A discussion on the relations of the floras, especially the alpine ones, of Azores, Madeira, and Canary Islands, would be, I should think, of general interest. How curious, the several doubtful species, which are referred to by Watson, at the end of his paper; just as happens with birds at the Galapagos...Any time that you can put me in the way of reading about alpine floras, I shall feel it as the greatest kindness. I grieve there is no better authority for Bourbon, than that stupid Bory: I presume his remark that plants, on isolated volcanic islands are polymorphous (i.e., I suppose, variable?) is quite gratuitous. Farewell, my dear Hooker. This letter is infamously unclear, and I fear can be of no use, except giving you the impression of a botanical ignoramus.

A discussion about the plant life, especially the alpine types, of the Azores, Madeira, and the Canary Islands would definitely be interesting. It's fascinating how many uncertain species Watson mentions at the end of his paper, much like what we see with birds in the Galapagos... Whenever you can share information on alpine floras, I would really appreciate it. I'm disappointed there isn't a better source for Bourbon than that foolish Bory; I assume his comment about plants on isolated volcanic islands being polymorphic (which I guess means variable?) is completely unnecessary. Take care, my dear Hooker. This letter is embarrassingly unclear, and I worry it just makes me seem like a botanical novice.

LETTER 316. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 19th {1845}.

...I was very glad to hear Humboldt's views on migrations and double creations. It is very presumptuous, but I feel sure that though one cannot prove extensive migration, the leading considerations, proper to the subject, are omitted, and I will venture to say even by Humboldt. I should like some time to put the case, like a lawyer, for your consideration, in the point of view under which, I think, it ought to be viewed. The conclusion which I come to is, that we cannot pretend, with our present knowledge, to put any limit to the possible, and even probable, migration of plants. If you can show that many of the Fuegian plants, common to Europe, are found in intermediate points, it will be a grand argument in favour of the actuality of migration; but not finding them will not, in my eyes, much diminish the probability of their having thus migrated. My pen always runs away, in writing to you; and a most unsteady, vilely bad pace it goes. What would I not give to write simple English, without having to rewrite and rewrite every sentence.

...I was really glad to hear Humboldt's thoughts on migrations and dual origins. It's a bit presumptuous, but I’m confident that while extensive migration can't be definitively proven, some key points related to the topic are overlooked, even by Humboldt. I would love to take some time to present my arguments, like a lawyer, for your consideration on how I believe this should be viewed. My conclusion is that we can't claim to have any limits on the possible, or even likely, migration of plants with our current understanding. If you can demonstrate that many of the Fuegian plants common in Europe are found in intermediate locations, it will be a strong argument in favor of migration actually happening; however, not finding them won’t, in my view, significantly reduce the likelihood of their having migrated in this way. My writing always tends to get away from me when I write to you, and it moves at a terribly inconsistent, frustrating pace. What wouldn't I give to write plain English without having to constantly rewrite each sentence.

LETTER 317. TO J.D. HOOKER. Friday {June 29th, 1845}.

I have been an ungrateful dog for not having answered your letter sooner, but I have been so hard at work correcting proofs (317/1. The second edition of the "Journal."), together with some unwellness, that I have not had one quarter of an hour to spare. I finally corrected the first third of the old volume, which will appear on July 1st. I hope and think I have somewhat improved it. Very many thanks for your remarks; some of them came too late to make me put some of my remarks more cautiously. I feel, however, still inclined to abide by my evaporation notion to account for the clouds of steam, which rise from the wooded valleys after rain. Again, I am so obstinate that I should require very good evidence to make me believe that there are two species of Polyborus (317/2. Polyborus Novae Zelandiae, a carrion hawk mentioned as very common in the Falklands.) in the Falkland Islands. Do the Gauchos there admit it? Much as I talked to them, they never alluded to such a fact. In the Zoology I have discussed the sexual and immature plumage, which differ much.

I apologize for being ungrateful and not getting back to you sooner. I've been really busy working on corrections (317/1. The second edition of the "Journal."), and I've also been feeling a bit unwell, so I haven't had even a quarter of an hour to spare. I finally finished correcting the first third of the old volume, which is set to be released on July 1st. I hope I've managed to improve it a bit. Thanks so much for your comments; some came too late for me to revise my earlier notes carefully. Still, I’m inclined to stick with my idea about evaporation to explain the clouds of steam that rise from the wooded valleys after it rains. I’m also a bit stubborn, and I would need really strong evidence to convince me that there are two species of Polyborus (317/2. Polyborus Novae Zelandiae, a carrion hawk mentioned as very common in the Falklands.) in the Falkland Islands. Do the Gauchos there recognize that? Despite how much I spoke with them, they never mentioned it. In the Zoology section, I've discussed how the sexual and immature plumage differ quite a bit.

I return the enclosed agreeable letter with many thanks. I am extremely glad of the plants collected at St. Paul's, and shall be particularly curious whenever they arrive to hear what they are. I dined the other day at Sir J. Lubbock's, and met R. Brown, and we had much laudatory talk about you. He spoke very nicely about your motives in now going to Edinburgh. He did not seem to know, and was much surprised at what I stated (I believe correctly) on the close relation between the Kerguelen and T. del Fuego floras. Forbes is doing apparently very good work about the introduction and distribution of plants. He has forestalled me in what I had hoped would have been an interesting discussion—viz., on the relation between the present alpine and Arctic floras, with connection to the last change of climate from Arctic to temperate, when the then Arctic lowland plants must have been driven up the mountains. (317/3. Forbes' Essay "On the Connection between the Distribution of the Existing Fauna and Flora of the British Isles and the Geological Changes which have affected their Area," was published in 1846. See note, Letter 20.)

I’m returning the attached pleasant letter with many thanks. I’m really happy about the plants collected at St. Paul's and I’m especially curious to find out what they are when they arrive. I had dinner the other day at Sir J. Lubbock's and met R. Brown, and we had a lot of positive things to say about you. He spoke very kindly about your reasons for going to Edinburgh. He didn’t seem to know, and was quite surprised by what I said (I believe correctly) about the close relationship between the Kerguelen and T. del Fuego plant life. Forbes is apparently doing some really good work on how plants are introduced and distributed. He got ahead of me on what I was hoping would be an interesting discussion—namely, about the relationship between today’s alpine and Arctic plant life, connected to the last climate change from Arctic to temperate, when the then-Arctic lowland plants must have been pushed up the mountains. (317/3. Forbes' Essay "On the Connection between the Distribution of the Existing Fauna and Flora of the British Isles and the Geological Changes which have affected their Area," was published in 1846. See note, Letter 20.)

I am much pleased to hear of the pleasant reception you received at Edinburgh. (317/4. Sir J.D. Hooker was a candidate for the Chair of Botany at Edinburgh. See "Life and Letters," I., pages 335, 342.) I hope your impressions will continue agreeable; my associations with auld Reekie are very friendly. Do you ever see Dr. Coldstream? If you do, would you give him my kind remembrances? You ask about amber. I believe all the species are extinct (i.e. without the amber has been doctored), and certainly the greater number are. (317/5. For an account of plants in amber see Goeppert and Berendt, "Der Bernstein und die in ihm befindlichen Pflanzenreste der Vorwelt," Berlin, 1845; Goeppert, "Coniferen des Bernstein," Danzig, 1883; Conwentz, "Monographie der Baltischen Bernsteinbaume," Danzig, 1890.)

I’m really happy to hear about the warm welcome you got in Edinburgh. (317/4. Sir J.D. Hooker was a candidate for the Chair of Botany at Edinburgh. See "Life and Letters," I., pages 335, 342.) I hope your impressions stay positive; my memories of auld Reekie are very fond. Do you ever see Dr. Coldstream? If you do, could you please send him my best regards? You asked about amber. I believe all the species are extinct (unless the amber has been altered), and definitely most of them are. (317/5. For an account of plants in amber see Goeppert and Berendt, "Der Bernstein und die in ihm befindlichen Pflanzenreste der Vorwelt," Berlin, 1845; Goeppert, "Coniferen des Bernstein," Danzig, 1883; Conwentz, "Monographie der Baltischen Bernsteinbaume," Danzig, 1890.)

If you have any other corrections ready, will you send them soon, for I shall go to press with second Part in less than a week. I have been so busy that I have not yet begun d'Urville, and have read only first chapter of Canary Islands! I am most particularly obliged to you for having lent me the latter, for I know not where else I could have ever borrowed it. There is the "Kosmos" to read, and Lyell's "Travels in North America." It is awful to think of how much there is to read. What makes H. Watson a renegade? I had a talk with Captain Beaufort the other day, and he charged me to keep a book and enter anything which occurred to me, which deserved examination or collection in any part of the world, and he would sooner or later get it in the instructions to some ship. If anything occurs to you let me hear, for in the course of a month or two I must write out something. I mean to urge collections of all kinds on any isolated islands. I suspect that there are several in the northern half of the Pacific, which have never been visited by a collector. This is a dull, untidy letter. Farewell.

If you have any other corrections ready, could you send them soon? I plan to go to press with the second part in less than a week. I've been so busy that I haven't started d'Urville yet, and I've only read the first chapter of the Canary Islands! I'm really grateful to you for lending me that, because I have no idea where else I could have borrowed it from. I still need to read "Kosmos" and Lyell's "Travels in North America." It's overwhelming to think about how much there is to read. What makes H. Watson a traitor? I spoke with Captain Beaufort the other day, and he asked me to keep a book and jot down anything I think deserves examination or collection from anywhere in the world; he said he would eventually include it in the instructions for some ship. If anything comes to mind, let me know, because in a month or two I need to write something. I plan to encourage collections of all kinds from any isolated islands. I suspect there are several in the northern part of the Pacific that have never been visited by a collector. This is a dull, messy letter. Goodbye.

As you care so much for insular floras, are you aware that I collected all in flower on the Abrolhos Islands? but they are very near the coast of Brazil. Nevertheless, I think they ought to be just looked at, under a geographical point of view.

As you’re so interested in isolated plant life, did you know that I collected all the flowering plants on the Abrolhos Islands? They’re quite close to the coast of Brazil. Still, I believe they should be examined from a geographical perspective.

LETTER 318. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November {1845}.

I have just got as far as Lycopodium in your Flora, and, in truth, cannot say enough how much I have been interested in all your scattered remarks. I am delighted to have in print many of the statements which you made in your letters to me, when we were discussing some of the geographical points. I can never cease marvelling at the similarity of the Antarctic floras: it is wonderful. I hope you will tabulate all your results, and put prominently what you allude to (and what is pre-eminently wanted by non-botanists like myself), which of the genera are, and which not, found in the lowland or in the highland Tropics, as far as known. Out of the very many new observations to me, nothing has surprised me more than the absence of Alpine floras in the S{outh} Islands. (318/1. See "Flora Antarctica," I., page 79, where the author says that "in the South...on ascending the mountains, few or no new forms occur." With regard to the Sandwich Islands, Sir Joseph wrote (page 75) that "though the volcanic islands of the Sandwich group attain a greater elevation than this {10,000 feet}, there is no such development of new species at the upper level." More recent statements to the same effect occur in Grisebach, "Vegetation der Erde," Volume II., page 530. See also Wallace, "Island Life," page 307.) It strikes me as most inexplicable. Do you feel sure about the similar absence in the Sandwich group? Is it not opposed quite to the case of Teneriffe and Madeira, and Mediterranean Islands? I had fancied that T. del Fuego had possessed a large alpine flora! I should much like to know whether the climate of north New Zealand is much more insular than Tasmania. I should doubt it from general appearance of places, and yet I presume the flora of the former is far more scanty than of Tasmania. Do tell me what you think on this point. I have also been particularly interested by all your remarks on variation, affinities, etc.: in short, your book has been to me a most valuable one, and I must have purchased it had you not most kindly given it, and so rendered it even far more valuable to me. When you compare a species to another, you sometimes do not mention the station of the latter (it being, I presume, well-known), but to non-botanists such words of explanation would add greatly to the interest—not that non-botanists have any claim at all for such explanations in professedly botanical works. There is one expression which you botanists often use (though, I think, not you individually often), which puts me in a passion—viz., calling polleniferous flowers "sterile," as non-seed-bearing. (318/2. See Letter 16.) Are the plates from your own drawings? They strike me as excellent. So now you have had my presumptuous commendations on your great work.

I just got to Lycopodium in your Flora, and honestly, I can’t say enough about how interesting I’ve found all your scattered comments. I’m thrilled to see many of the things you mentioned in your letters to me when we were discussing some geographical points in print. I’m always amazed by the similarity of Antarctic floras; it’s incredible. I hope you will organize all your findings and clearly highlight what you refer to (and what is especially needed by non-botanists like me), which genera are found in the lowland or in the highland Tropics, as far as known. Out of all the new observations, nothing has surprised me more than the lack of Alpine floras in the South Islands. It seems completely inexplicable to me. Are you sure about the similar absence in the Sandwich group? Isn’t it completely opposite to what we see in Teneriffe, Madeira, and the Mediterranean Islands? I had thought that T. del Fuego had a large alpine flora! I’d really like to know if the climate of northern New Zealand is much more insular than Tasmania. I doubt it based on the general appearance of places, yet I assume the flora in the former is much scarcer than in Tasmania. Please share your thoughts on this. I’ve also been particularly interested in all your comments about variation, affinities, etc.: in short, your book has been incredibly valuable to me, and I would have bought it if you hadn’t so kindly given it to me, making it even more special. When you compare a species to another, you sometimes don’t mention the location of the latter (since I assume it’s well-known), but for non-botanists, those kinds of explanations would really enhance interest—not that non-botanists have any right to expect such clarifications in botanical works. There’s one term that botanists often use (though I don’t think you do as often), which drives me crazy—calling polleniferous flowers "sterile," as if they don’t produce seeds. Are the plates from your own drawings? They seem excellent to me. So, now you've had my bold compliments on your great work.

LETTER 319. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Friday {1845-6}.

It is quite curious how our opinions agree about Forbes' views. (319/1. See Letter 20.) I was very glad to have your last letter, which was even more valuable to me than most of yours are, and that is saying, I assure you, a great deal. I had written to Forbes to object about the Azores (319/2. Edward Forbes supposed that the Azores, the Madeiras, and Canaries "are the last remaining fragments" of a continent which once connected them with Western Europe and Northern Spain. Lyell's "Principles," Edition XI., Volume II., page 410. See Forbes, op. cit.) on the same grounds as you had, and he made some answer, which partially satisfied me, but really I am so stupid I cannot remember it. He insisted strongly on the fewness of the species absolutely peculiar to the Azores—most of the non-European species being common to Madeira. I had thought that a good sprinkling were absolutely peculiar. Till I saw him last Wednesday I thought he had not a leg to stand on in his geology about his post-Miocene land; and his reasons, upon reflection, seem rather weak: the main one is that there are no deposits (more recent than the Miocene age) on the Miocene strata of Malta, etc., but I feel pretty sure that this cannot be trusted as evidence that Malta must have been above water during all the post-Miocene period. He had one other reason, to my mind still less trustworthy. I had also written to Forbes, before your letter, objecting to the Sargassum (319/3. Edward Forbes supposed that the Sargassum or Gulf-weed represents the littoral sea-weeds of a now submerged continent. "Mem. Geol. Survey Great Britain," Volume I., 1846, page 349. See Lyell's "Principles," II., page 396, Edition XI.), but apparently on wrong grounds, for I could see no reason, on the common view of absolute creations, why one Fucus should not have been created for the ocean, as well as several Confervae for the same end. It is really a pity that Forbes is quite so speculative: he will injure his reputation, anyhow, on the Continent; and thus will do less good. I find this is the opinion of Falconer, who was with us on Sunday, and was extremely agreeable. It is wonderful how much heterogeneous information he has about all sorts of things. I the more regret Forbes cannot more satisfactorily prove his views, as I heartily wish they were established, and to a limited extent I fully believe they are true; but his boldness is astounding. Do I understand your letter right, that West Africa (319/4. This is of course a misunderstanding.) and Java belong to the same botanical region—i.e., that they have many non-littoral species in common? If so, it is a sickening fact: think of the distance with the Indian Ocean interposed! Do some time answer me this. With respect to polymorphism, which you have been so very kind as to give me so much information on, I am quite convinced it must be given up in the sense you have discussed it in; but from such cases as the Galapagos birds and from hypothetical notions on variation, I should be very glad to know whether it must be given up in a slightly different point of view; that is, whether the peculiar insular species are generally well and strongly distinguishable from the species on the nearest continent (when there is a continent near); the Galapagos, Canary Islands, and Madeira ought to answer this. I should have hypothetically expected that a good many species would have been fine ones, like some of the Galapagos birds, and still more so on the different islands of such groups.

It’s quite interesting how our opinions align regarding Forbes' views. (319/1. See Letter 20.) I was really pleased to receive your last letter, which was even more valuable to me than most of yours, and believe me, that says a lot. I had reached out to Forbes to express my disagreement about the Azores (319/2. Edward Forbes believed that the Azores, the Madeiras, and the Canaries "are the last remaining fragments" of a continent that once connected them to Western Europe and Northern Spain. Lyell's "Principles," Edition XI., Volume II., page 410. See Forbes, op. cit.) based on the same reasons you did, and he responded in a way that partially satisfied me, but honestly, I can't recall the details. He strongly emphasized the small number of species that are unique to the Azores, noting that most of the non-European species are common to Madeira. I had thought a fair number were completely unique. Until I saw him last Wednesday, I believed he had no solid ground in his geology regarding his post-Miocene land; and upon reflection, his reasons seem pretty weak: the main argument is that there are no deposits (more recent than the Miocene age) on the Miocene strata of Malta, etc., but I am fairly certain that this can't be considered evidence that Malta has been above water throughout the entire post-Miocene period. He had another reason, which I find even less convincing. Before your letter, I had also written to Forbes, objecting to his views on Sargassum (319/3. Edward Forbes believed that Sargassum or Gulf-weed represents the coastal seaweeds of a now-submerged continent. "Mem. Geol. Survey Great Britain," Volume I., 1846, page 349. See Lyell's "Principles," II., page 396, Edition XI.), but apparently on mistaken grounds, since I see no reason, based on the common view of absolute creations, why one Fucus couldn’t have been created for the ocean, just like several Confervae. It’s really unfortunate that Forbes is so speculative; he will damage his reputation in any case on the Continent, which will hinder the impact of his work. I find this sentiment echoes Falconer, who joined us on Sunday and was extremely agreeable. It’s remarkable how much diverse information he holds on all sorts of topics. I regret even more that Forbes cannot prove his views more convincingly, as I genuinely wish they were established, and to some extent, I do believe they are true; however, his boldness is astonishing. Do I understand your letter correctly that West Africa (319/4. This is of course a misunderstanding.) and Java belong to the same botanical region—meaning they share many non-littoral species in common? If that’s the case, it’s a frustrating fact: consider the distance with the Indian Ocean in between! Please take some time to answer this. Regarding polymorphism, which you have kindly explained to me in such detail, I am convinced it must be abandoned in the way you’ve discussed it; but from examples like the Galapagos birds and from hypothetical ideas on variation, I would really like to know if it needs to be abandoned from a slightly different perspective; specifically, whether the unique insular species are generally well and clearly distinguishable from the species on the nearest continent (when there is a continent nearby); the Galapagos, Canary Islands, and Madeira should provide answers to this. I would have hypothetically expected that many species would have been striking, like some of the Galapagos birds, and especially so on the various islands within such groups.

I am going to ask you some questions, but I should really sometimes almost be glad if you did not answer me for a long time, or not at all, for in honest truth I am often ashamed at, and marvel at, your kindness in writing such long letters to me. So I beg you to mind, never to write to me when it bores you. Do you know "Elements de Teratologie (on monsters, I believe) Vegetale," par A. Moquin Tandon"? (319/5. Paris, 1841.) Is it a good book, and will it treat on hereditary malconformations or varieties? I have almost finished the tremendous task of 850 pages of A. St. Hilaire's Lectures (319/6. "Lecons de Botanique," 1841.), which you set me, and very glad I am that you told me to read it, for I have been much interested with parts. Certain expressions which run through the whole work put me in a passion: thus I take, at hazard, "la plante n'etait pas tout a fait ASSEZ AFFAIBLIE pour produire de veritables carpelles." Every organ or part concerned in reproduction—that highest end of all lower organisms—is, according to this man, produced by a lesser or greater degree of "affaiblissement"; and if that is not an AFFAIBLISSEMENT of language, I don't know what is. I have used an expression here, which leads me to ask another question: on what sort of grounds do botanists make one family of plants higher than another? I can see that the simplest cryptogamic are lowest, and I suppose, from their relations, the monocotyledonous come next; but how in the different families of the dicotyledons? The point seems to me equally obscure in many races of animals, and I know not how to tell whether a bee or cicindela is highest. (319/7. On use of terms "high" and "low" see Letters 36 and 70.) I see Aug. Hilaire uses a multiplicity of parts—several circles of stamens, etc.—as evidence of the highness of the Ranunculaceae; now Owen has truly, as I believe, used the same argument to show the lowness of some animals, and has established the proposition, that the fewer the number of any organ, as legs or wings or teeth, by which the same end is gained, the higher the animal. One other question. Hilaire says (page 572) that "chez une foule de plantes c'est dans le bouton," that impregnation takes place. He instances only Goodenia (319/8. For letters on this point, see Index s.v. Goodenia.), and Falconer cannot recollect any cases. Do you know any of this "foule" of plants? From reasons, little better than hypothetical, I greatly misdoubt the accuracy of this, presumptuous as it is; that plants shed their pollen in the bud is, of course, quite a different story. Can you illuminate me? Henslow will send the Galapagos scraps to you. I direct this to Kew, as I suppose, after your sister's marriage (on which I beg to send you my congratulations), you will return home.

I’m going to ask you some questions, but honestly, I’d almost be glad if you didn’t answer me for a while, or not at all, because I often feel embarrassed by your kindness in writing such long letters to me. So please, I ask you, only write to me when it doesn’t bore you. Do you know "Elements de Teratologie (about monsters, I think) Vegetale," by A. Moquin Tandon"? (319/5. Paris, 1841.) Is it a good book, and does it cover hereditary malformations or variations? I’ve almost finished the huge task of 850 pages of A. St. Hilaire's Lectures (319/6. "Lecons de Botanique," 1841.), which you encouraged me to read, and I’m really glad you did because I found some parts very interesting. Certain phrases that repeat throughout the work frustrate me: for example, “la plante n'etait pas tout a fait ASSEZ AFFAIBLIE pour produire de veritables carpelles.” According to this guy, every organ or part involved in reproduction—the ultimate goal of all lower organisms—is produced by a lesser or greater degree of "affaiblissement"; and if that isn’t a WEAKENING of language, I don’t know what is. I used a term here that makes me want to ask another question: how do botanists determine that one family of plants is superior to another? I can see that the simplest cryptogams are the lowest, and I guess the monocots come next; but how does it work for the different families of dicots? This seems just as unclear in many animal species, and I can’t figure out whether a bee or a cicindela is superior. (319/7. For the use of the terms "high" and "low," see Letters 36 and 70.) I see Aug. Hilaire uses many parts—several circles of stamens, etc.—as proof of the superiority of the Ranunculaceae; but Owen has rightly, I believe, cited the same argument to show the inferiority of some animals and established that the fewer the number of any organ, like legs, wings, or teeth, to achieve the same purpose, the higher the animal. One more question. Hilaire says (page 572) that "chez une foule de plantes c'est dans le bouton" that fertilization happens. He only mentions Goodenia (319/8. For letters on this topic, see Index s.v. Goodenia.), and Falconer can’t recall any other examples. Do you know any of this "crowd" of plants? For reasons that are barely better than hypothetical, I seriously doubt the accuracy of this claim, as presumptuous as it is; plants shedding their pollen in the bud is a completely different issue. Can you shed some light on this? Henslow will send the Galapagos notes to you. I’m sending this to Kew, as I assume that after your sister’s wedding (which I want to congratulate you on), you will be returning home.

There are great fears that Falconer will have to go out to India—this will be a grievous loss to Palaeontology.

There are serious concerns that Falconer will have to travel to India—this will be a significant loss to paleontology.

LETTER 320. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 10th {1846}.

I was much pleased to see and sign your certificate for the Geolog{ical Society}; we shall thus occasionally, I hope, meet. (320/1. Sir Joseph was elected a Fellow of the Geological Society in 1846.)

I was really happy to see and sign your certificate for the Geological Society; I hope we will get to meet occasionally because of it. (320/1. Sir Joseph was elected a Fellow of the Geological Society in 1846.)

I have been an ungrateful dog not to have thanked you before this for the cake and books. The children and their betters pronounced the former excellent, and Annie wanted to know whether it was the gentleman "what played with us so." I wish we were at a more reasonable distance, that Emma and myself could have called on Lady Hooker with our congratulations on this occasion. It was very good of you to put in both numbers of the "Hort. Journal." I think Dean Herbert's article well worth reading. I have been so extravagant as to order M{oquin} Tandon (320/2. Probably "Elements de Teratologie Vegetale": Paris, 1841.), for though I have not found, as yet, anything particularly novel or striking, yet I found that I wished to score a good many passages so as to re-read them at some future time, and hence have ordered the book. Consequently I hope soon to send back your books. I have sent off the Ascension plants through Bunsen to Ehrenberg.

I’ve been really ungrateful not to thank you sooner for the cake and books. The kids and their elders all said the cake was amazing, and Annie wanted to know if it was the gentleman "who played with us." I wish we were closer so that Emma and I could have congratulated Lady Hooker in person for this occasion. It was very thoughtful of you to include both issues of the "Hort. Journal." I think Dean Herbert's article is definitely worth reading. I've been a bit extravagant and ordered M{oquin} Tandon (320/2. Probably "Elements de Teratologie Vegetale": Paris, 1841.), because even though I haven't come across anything especially new or striking, I've found myself wanting to highlight several passages to revisit later, so I decided to get the book. Because of that, I hope to send your books back soon. I've sent the Ascension plants to Ehrenberg through Bunsen.

There was much in your last long letter which interested me much; and I am particularly glad that you are going to attend to polymorphism in our last and incorrect sense in your works; I see that it must be most difficult to take any sort of constant limit for the amount of possible variation. How heartily I do wish that all your works were out and complete; so that I could quietly think over them. I fear the Pacific Islands must be far distant in futurity. I fear, indeed, that Forbes is going rather too quickly ahead; but we shall soon see all his grounds, as I hear he is now correcting the press on this subject; he has plenty of people who attack him; I see Falconer never loses a chance, and it is wonderful how well Forbes stands it. What a very striking fact is the botanical relation between Africa and Java; as you now state it, I am pleased rather than disgusted, for it accords capitally with the distribution of the mammifers (320/3. See Wallace, "Geogr. Distribution," Volume I., page 263, on the "special Oriental or even Malayan element" in the West African mammals and birds.): only that I judge from your letters that the Cape differs even more markedly than I had thought, from the rest of Africa, and much more than the mammifers do. I am surprised to find how well mammifers and plants seem to accord in their general distribution. With respect to my strong objection to Aug. St. Hilaire's language on AFFAIBLISSEMENT (320/4. This refers to his "Lecons de Botanique (Morphologie Vegetale)," 1841. Saint-Hilaire often explains morphological differences as due to differences in vigour. See Letter 319.), it is perhaps hardly rational, and yet he confesses that some of the most vigorous plants in nature have some of their organs struck with this weakness—he does not pretend, of course, that they were ever otherwise in former generations—or that a more vigorously growing plant produces organs less weakened, and thus fails in producing its typical structure. In a plant in a state of nature, does cutting off the sap tend to produce flower-buds? I know it does in trees in orchards. Owen has been doing some grand work in the morphology of the vertebrata: your arm and hand are parts of your head, or rather the processes (i.e. modified ribs) of the occipital vertebra! He gave me a grand lecture on a cod's head. By the way, would it not strike you as monstrous, if in speaking of the minute and lessening jaws, palpi, etc., of an insect or crustacean, any one were to say they were produced by the affaiblissement of the less important but larger organs of locomotion. I see from your letter (though I do not suppose it is worth referring to the subject) that I could not have expressed what I meant when I allowed you to infer that Owen's rule of single organs being of a higher order than multiple organs applied only to locomotive, etc.; it applies to every the most important organ. I do not doubt that he would say the placentata having single wombs, whilst the marsupiata have double ones, is an instance of this law. I believe, however, in most instances where one organ, as a nervous centre or heart, takes the places of several, it rises in complexity; but it strikes me as really odd, seeing in this instance eminent botanists and zoologists starting from reverse grounds. Pray kindly bear in mind about impregnation in bud: I have never (for some years having been on the look-out) heard of an instance: I have long wished to know how it was in Subularia, or some such name, which grows on the bottom of Scotch lakes, and likewise in a grassy plant, which lives in brackish water, I quite forget name, near Thames; elder botanists doubted whether it was a Phanerogam. When we meet I will tell you why I doubt this bud-impregnation.

There was a lot in your last long letter that really interested me, and I'm especially glad that you’re going to look into polymorphism in our last and incorrect sense in your work. I can see that it must be really difficult to set any kind of constant limit on possible variation. I truly wish all your work was published and complete so I could think about it more calmly. I’m afraid that the Pacific Islands are still quite far in the future. I do worry that Forbes is moving a bit too quickly, but we’ll soon see all his findings since I heard he’s currently correcting the press on this topic; he has plenty of people who go after him. I notice Falconer never misses a chance, and it's impressive how well Forbes handles it. The botanical connection between Africa and Java is really striking; as you now describe it, I find it quite pleasing rather than off-putting, since it fits neatly with the distribution of mammals (320/3. See Wallace, "Geogr. Distribution," Volume I., page 263, on the "special Oriental or even Malayan element" in the West African mammals and birds.): but I gather from your letters that the Cape is even more noticeably different from the rest of Africa than I previously thought, and much more than the mammals are. I'm surprised by how well mammals and plants seem to match in their general distribution. Regarding my strong objection to Auguste St. Hilaire's language on AFFAIBLISSEMENT (320/4. This refers to his "Lecons de Botanique (Morphologie Vegetale)," 1841. Saint-Hilaire often explains morphological differences as due to differences in vigor. See Letter 319.), it may not be entirely rational, yet he admits that some of the most vigorous plants in nature have some of their organs affected by this weakness—he doesn’t claim, of course, that they were ever different in previous generations—or that a more vigorous plant produces organs that are less weakened, failing to create its typical structure. In a plant in its natural state, does cutting off the sap lead to the production of flower buds? I know it does in orchard trees. Owen has been doing some amazing work on vertebrate morphology: your arm and hand are parts of your head, or rather extensions (i.e., modified ribs) of the occipital vertebra! He gave me a fantastic lecture on a cod's head. By the way, wouldn’t it seem absurd if, while discussing the tiny and diminishing jaws, palpi, etc., of an insect or crustacean, someone claimed they resulted from the weakening of the less important but larger organs of locomotion? From your letter, I see (though I don’t think it's worth mentioning this topic) that I might not have conveyed my thoughts clearly when I allowed you to think that Owen's rule about single organs being of a higher order than multiple organs applied only to locomotion, etc.; it actually applies to every important organ. I have no doubt he would argue that placentals, having single wombs, whereas marsupials have double ones, is an example of this rule. However, I believe that in most cases where one organ, like a nervous center or heart, replaces several, it tends to become more complex; but it seems strange to me, observing in this case, that prominent botanists and zoologists are starting from opposite viewpoints. Please keep in mind the issue of fertilization in buds: for several years of looking, I’ve never heard of an instance. I’ve been curious about how it works in Subularia, or a name like that, which grows on the bottoms of Scottish lakes, and also in a grassy plant that thrives in brackish water, I can't recall the name, near the Thames; earlier botanists doubted if it was a Phanerogam. When we meet, I’ll tell you why I have my doubts about this bud fertilization.

We are at present in a state of utmost confusion, as we have pulled all our offices down and are going to rebuild and alter them. I am personally in a state of utmost confusion also, for my cruel wife has persuaded me to leave off snuff for a month; and I am most lethargic, stupid, and melancholy in consequence.

We are currently in a state of complete chaos, as we've torn down all our offices and are planning to rebuild and renovate them. I, too, am feeling pretty confused, because my harsh wife has convinced me to quit snuff for a month; as a result, I'm feeling lethargic, dull, and down in the dumps.

Farewell, my dear Hooker. Ever yours.

Farewell, my dear Hooker. Always yours.

LETTER 321. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 19th {1855}.

Thank you for your list of R.S. candidates, which will be very useful to me.

Thank you for your list of R.S. candidates; it will be really helpful to me.

I have thought a good deal about my salting experiments (321/1. For an account of Darwin's experiments on the effect of salt water on the germination of seeds, see "Life and Letters," II., page 54. In April he wrote to the "Gardeners' Chronicle" asking for information, and his results were published in the same journal, May 26th and November 24th, 1855; also in the "Linn. Soc. Journal," 1857.), and really think they are worth pursuing to a certain extent; but I hardly see the use (at least, the use equivalent to the enormous labour) of trying the experiment on the immense scale suggested by you. I should think a few seeds of the leading orders, or a few seeds of each of the classes mentioned by you, with albumen of different kinds would suffice to show the possibility of considerable sea-transportal. To tell whether any particular insular flora had thus been transported would require that each species should be examined. Will you look through these printed lists, and if you can, mark with red cross such as you would suggest? In truth, I fear I impose far more on your great kindness, my dear Hooker, than I have any claim; but you offered this, for I never thought of asking you for more than a suggestion. I do not think I could manage more than forty or fifty kinds at a time, for the water, I find, must be renewed every other day, as it gets to smell horribly: and I do not think your plan good of little packets of cambric, as this entangles so much air. I shall keep the great receptacle with salt water with the forty or fifty little bottles, partly open, immersed in it, in the cellar for uniform temperature. I must plant out of doors, as I have no greenhouse.

I’ve been thinking a lot about my salt experiments, and I really believe they’re worth exploring to some extent. However, I don’t see the value—at least not in relation to the immense effort—of conducting the experiment on the huge scale you suggested. I think a few seeds from the main groups or a few seeds from each category you mentioned, along with different types of albumen, would be enough to demonstrate the possibility of significant sea transport. Determining if any specific island flora was transported this way would require examining each species. Could you look through these printed lists and, if possible, mark the ones you would suggest with a red cross? Honestly, I worry I’m asking too much of your kindness, dear Hooker, more than I really deserve, but you offered your help, as I never thought to ask for more than a suggestion. I don’t think I could handle more than forty or fifty varieties at a time because the water needs to be changed every other day since it starts to smell terrible. I also don’t think your idea of using little packets of cambric is good, as it traps too much air. I’ll keep the large container with salt water and the forty or fifty small bottles, which will be partly open, immersed in it in the cellar to maintain a uniform temperature. I need to plant outside since I don’t have a greenhouse.

I told you I had inserted notice in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and to-day I have heard from Berkeley that he has already sent an assortment of seeds to Margate for some friend to put in salt water; so I suppose he thinks the experiment worth trying, as he has thus so very promptly taken it into his own hands. (321/2. Rev. M.J. Berkeley published on the subject in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," September 1st, 1855.)

I told you I put a notice in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and today I heard from Berkeley that he has already sent a variety of seeds to Margate for a friend to soak in salt water. I guess he thinks the experiment is worth trying since he has quickly taken charge of it. (321/2. Rev. M.J. Berkeley published on the subject in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," September 1st, 1855.)

Reading this over, it sounds as if I were offended!!! which I need not say is not so. (321/3. Added afterwards between the lines.)

Reading this over, it sounds like I was offended!!! which I should mention is not the case. (321/3. Added afterwards between the lines.)

I may just mention that the seeds mentioned in my former note have all germinated after fourteen days' immersion, except the cabbages all dead, and the radishes have had their germination delayed and several I think dead; cress still all most vigorous. French spinach, oats, barley, canary-seed, borage, beet have germinated after seven days' immersion.

I just want to point out that the seeds I talked about in my previous note have all sprouted after being soaked for fourteen days, except the cabbages, which are all dead. The radishes have had a delayed germination, and I think several of them are dead too; however, the cress is still really strong. French spinach, oats, barley, canary seed, borage, and beet have all germinated after seven days of soaking.

It is quite surprising that the radishes should have grown, for the salt water was putrid to an extent which I could not have thought credible had I not smelt it myself, as was the water with the cabbage-seed.

It’s quite surprising that the radishes actually grew, because the saltwater was so rotten that I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't smelled it myself, just like the water with the cabbage seeds.

LETTER 322. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 10th {1855}.

If being thoroughly interested with your letters makes me worthy of them, I am very worthy.

If being completely invested in your letters makes me deserving of them, then I am definitely deserving.

I have raised some seedling Sensitive Plants, but if you can READILY spare me a moderately sized plant, I shall be glad of it.

I have grown some seedling Sensitive Plants, but if you can easily spare a medium-sized plant, I would appreciate it.

You encourage me so, that I will slowly go on salting seeds. I have not, I see, explained myself, to let you suppose that I objected to such cases as the former union of England and the Continent; I look at this case as proved by animals, etc., etc.; and, indeed, it would be an astounding fact if the land had kept so steady as that they had not been united, with Snowdon elevated 1,300 feet in recent times, etc., etc.

You motivate me so much that I will gradually start planting seeds. I realize I haven’t been clear enough to make you think I have a problem with situations like the previous connection between England and the Continent; I see this case as demonstrated by animals, etc., etc.; and honestly, it would be surprising if the land had remained so stable that they hadn’t been connected, with Snowdon rising 1,300 feet in recent times, etc., etc.

It is only against the former union with the oceanic volcanic islands that I am vehement. (322/1. See "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 72, 74, 80, 109.) What a perplexing case New Zealand does seem: is not the absence of Leguminosae, etc., etc., FULLY as much opposed to continental connexion as to any other theory? What a curious fact you state about distribution and lowness going together.

It is only in contrast to the previous connection with the oceanic volcanic islands that I feel strongly. (322/1. See "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 72, 74, 80, 109.) What a puzzling situation New Zealand appears to be: isn’t the lack of Leguminosae and so on just as much against a continental connection as against any other theory? What an interesting point you make about distribution and low elevation being linked.

The presence of a frog in New Zealand seems to me a strongish fact for continental connexion, for I assume that sea water would kill spawn, but I shall try. The spawn, I find, will live about ten days out of water, but I do not think it could possibly stick to a bird.

The presence of a frog in New Zealand seems to me a strong indication of a continental connection because I assume that sea water would kill the eggs, but I will give it a try. The eggs, I've found, can survive about ten days without water, but I don't think they could possibly cling to a bird.

What you say about no one realising creation strikes me as very true; but I think and hope that there is nearly as much difference between trying to find out whether species of a genus have had a common ancestor and concerning oneself with the first origin of life, as between making out the laws of chemical attraction and the first origin of matter.

What you say about no one realizing creation is very true; however, I believe and hope that there's almost as much difference between trying to find out if species within a genus share a common ancestor and worrying about the very first origin of life, as there is between figuring out the laws of chemical attraction and the initial origin of matter.

I thought that Gray's letter had come open to you, and that you had read it: you will see what I asked—viz., for habitats of the alpine plants, but I presume there will be nothing new to you. Please return both. How pleasantly Gray takes my request, and I think I shall have done a good turn if I make him write a paper on geographical distribution of plants of United States.

I thought that Gray's letter had opened up to you and that you had read it: you'll see what I asked for—specifically, the habitats of the alpine plants, but I assume there won’t be anything new for you. Please return both. Gray responds to my request so pleasantly, and I believe I’ll have done a good deed if I manage to get him to write a paper on the geographical distribution of plants in the United States.

I have written him a very long letter, telling him some of the points about which I should feel curious. But on my life it is sublimely ridiculous, my making suggestions to such a man.

I wrote him a really long letter, sharing some of the things I'm curious about. But honestly, it's incredibly silly for me to make suggestions to such a guy.

I cannot help thinking that what you say about low plants being widely distributed and standing injurious conditions better than higher ones (but is not this most difficult to show?) is equally favourable to sea-transport, to continental connexions, and all other means. Pray do not suppose that I fancy that if I could show that nearly all seeds could stand an almost indefinite period of immersion in sea-water, that I have done more than one EXTREMELY SMALL step in solving the problem of distribution, for I can quite appreciate the importance of the fact you point out; and then the directions of currents in past and present times have to be considered!!

I can’t help but think that what you say about low plants being more widely distributed and better able to survive harsh conditions than taller ones (though isn’t this really hard to prove?) also supports sea transport, connections between continents, and all other means. Please don’t think that if I could show that almost all seeds can survive nearly indefinite periods of being submerged in sea water, I would have made more than a TINY STEP in solving the distribution problem, because I fully understand the importance of the point you make; plus, we also need to consider the currents from the past and present times!!

I shall be very curious to hear Berkeley's results in the salting line.

I’m really curious to hear Berkeley’s results on the salting process.

With respect to geological changes, I ought to be one of the last men to undervalue them after my map of coral islands, and after what I have seen of elevation on coast of America. Farewell. I hope my letters do not bother you. Again, and for the last time, I say that I should be extremely vexed if ever you write to me against the grain or when tired.

Regarding geological changes, I should be one of the last people to underestimate them after my work on coral islands and what I've observed about the elevation along the coast of America. Goodbye. I hope my letters aren’t a nuisance to you. Once more, and for the last time, I want to say that it would really upset me if you ever wrote to me when you didn’t feel like it or when you were tired.

LETTER 323. TO J.S HENSLOW. Down, July 2nd {1855}.

Very many thanks for all you have done, and so very kindly promise to do for me.

Thank you so much for everything you've done and for all the kind promises you’ve made for me.

Will you make a present to each of the little girls (if not too big and grandiose) of six pence (for which I send stamps), who are going to collect seeds for me: viz., Lychnis, white, red, and flesh-colour (if such occur).

Will you give a small gift to each of the little girls (if it’s not too big and fancy) of six pence (for which I’m sending stamps), who are going to collect seeds for me: namely, Lychnis, white, red, and light pink (if any of those are available).

...Will you be so kind as to look at them before sent, just to see positively that they are correct, for remember how ignorant botanically I am.

...Could you please take a look at them before they're sent, just to make sure they are correct? Remember how clueless I am when it comes to botany.

Do you see the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and did you notice some little experiments of mine on salting seeds? Celery and onion seed have come up after eighty-five days' immersion in the salt water, which seems to me surprising, and I think throws some light on the wide dispersion of certain plants. Now, it has occurred to me that it would be an interesting way of testing the probability of sea-transportal of seeds, to make a list of all the European plants found in the Azores—a very oceanic archipelago—collect the seeds, and try if they would stand a pretty long immersion. Do you think the most able of your little girls would like to collect for me a packet of seeds of such Azorean plants as grow near Hitcham, I paying, say 3 pence for each packet: it would put a few shillings into their pockets, and would be an enormous advantage to me, for I grudge the time to collect the seeds, more especially as I have to learn the plants! The experiment seems to me worth trying: what do you think? Should you object offering for me this reward or payment to your little girls? You would have to select the most conscientious ones, that I might not get wrong seeds. I have just been comparing the lists, and I suspect you would not have very many of the Azorean plants. You have, however,

Do you see the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and did you notice some of my little experiments with salting seeds? Celery and onion seeds have sprouted after being soaked in salt water for eighty-five days, which I find surprising and think helps explain the wide spread of certain plants. It occurred to me that it would be interesting to test the likelihood of seeds being transported by sea by making a list of all the European plants found in the Azores—a very oceanic archipelago—collecting the seeds, and seeing if they could tolerate a long soak. Do you think the most capable of your little girls would be interested in gathering a packet of seeds from any Azorean plants that grow near Hitcham? I would pay, say, 3 pence for each packet: it would earn them a little money, and it would be a huge help for me, as I don't want to spend the time collecting the seeds, especially since I need to learn the plants! I think the experiment is worth trying: what do you think? Would you have any objections to offering this reward or payment to your little girls? You would need to choose the most reliable ones, so I don't end up with the wrong seeds. I've just been comparing the lists, and I suspect you wouldn’t have many of the Azorean plants. However, you have, though...

     Ranunculus repens,
     Ranunculus parviflorus,
     Papaver rhoeas,?
     Papaver dubium,?
     Chelidonium majus,?
     Fumaria officinalis.?

     Ranunculus repens,
     Ranunculus parviflorus,
     Papaver rhoeas,?
     Papaver dubium,?
     Chelidonium majus,?
     Fumaria officinalis.?

All these are Azorean plants.

These are all Azorean plants.

With respect to cultivating plants, I mean to begin on very few, for I may find it too troublesome. I have already had for some months primroses and cowslips, strongly manured with guano, and with flowers picked off, and one cowslip made to grow in shade; and next spring I shall collect seed.

With regard to growing plants, I plan to start with only a few, since it might become too much work. I’ve had primroses and cowslips for several months, well-fertilized with guano, with the flowers removed, and one cowslip growing in the shade; and next spring I will collect seeds.

I think you have quite misunderstood me in regard to my object in getting you to mark in accompanying list with (x) all the "close species" (323/1. See Letter 279.) i.e., such as you do not think to be varieties, but which nevertheless are very closely allied; it has nothing whatever to do with their cultivation, but I cannot tell you {my} object, as it might unconsciously influence you in marking them. Will you draw your pencil right through all the names of those (few) species, of which you may know nothing. Afterwards, when done, I will tell you my object—not that it is worth telling, though I myself am very curious on the subject. I know and can perceive that the definition of "close species" is very vague, and therefore I should not care for the list being marked by any one, except by such as yourself.

I think you’ve misunderstood me about my request for you to mark in the accompanying list with (x) all the "close species" (323/1. See Letter 279.), meaning those you don’t consider varieties but are still very closely related. This isn’t about their cultivation at all, but I can’t share my purpose with you because it might unintentionally affect how you mark them. Please cross out all the names of those (few) species that you might not know anything about. Once you’re finished, I’ll tell you my purpose—not that it’s particularly important, but I’m quite curious about it myself. I realize that the definition of "close species" is pretty vague, which is why I wouldn’t want anyone else marking the list, only you.

Forgive this long letter. I thank you heartily for all your assistance.

Forgive me for this long letter. I sincerely appreciate all your help.

My dear old Master, Yours affectionately, C. Darwin.

Perhaps 3 pence would be hardly enough, and if the number of kinds does not turn out very great it shall be 6 pence per packet.

Perhaps 3 pence wouldn't be enough, and if the variety isn't very large, it should be 6 pence per packet.

LETTER 324. ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(324/1. In reply to Darwin's letter, June 8th, 1855, given in "Life and Letters," II., page 61.)

(324/1. In response to Darwin's letter, June 8th, 1855, found in "Life and Letters," II., page 61.)

Harvard University, Cambridge, U.S., June 30th, 1855.

Harvard University, Cambridge, USA, June 30, 1855.

Your long letter of the 8th inst. is full of interest to me, and I shall follow out your hints as far as I can. I rejoice in furnishing facts to others to work up in their bearing on general questions, and feel it the more my duty to do so inasmuch as from preoccupation of mind and time and want of experience I am unable to contribute direct original investigations of the sort to the advancement of science.

Your lengthy letter from the 8th is really interesting to me, and I’ll follow your suggestions as much as I can. I’m happy to provide facts for others to develop in relation to broader questions, and I feel it’s even more important for me to do so since my busy mind and lack of experience prevent me from contributing original research directly to the advancement of science.

Your request at the close of your letter, which you have such needless hesitation in making, is just the sort of one which it is easy for me to reply to, as it lies directly in my way. It would probably pass out of my mind, however, at the time you propose, so I will attend to it at once, to fill up the intervals of time left me while attending to one or two pupils. So I take some unbound sheets of a copy of the "Manual," and mark off the "close species" by connecting them with a bracket.

Your request at the end of your letter, which you're so hesitant to make, is exactly the kind of thing I can easily respond to, as it’s right up my alley. However, it might slip my mind at the time you suggested, so I’ll take care of it now to fill the gaps in my schedule while I’m working with a couple of students. So I grab some unbound sheets from a copy of the "Manual" and mark the "close species" by connecting them with a bracket.

Those thus connected, some of them, I should in revision unite under one, many more Dr. Hooker would unite, and for the rest it would not be extraordinary if, in any case, the discovery of intermediate forms compelled their union.

Those connected in this way, some of them, I would combine into one upon review, many more Dr. Hooker would combine, and for the others, it wouldn't be surprising if, in some cases, the discovery of intermediate forms forced their combination.

As I have noted on the blank page of the sheets I send you (through Sir William Hooker), I suppose that if we extended the area, say to that of our flora of North America, we should find that the proportion of "close species" to the whole flora increased considerably. But here I speak at a venture. Some day I will test it for a few families.

As I’ve mentioned on the blank page of the sheets I'm sending you (through Sir William Hooker), I believe that if we expanded the area, for example, to include the flora of North America, we would find that the proportion of "closely related species" to the entire flora would increase significantly. But I’m just guessing here. One day, I’ll check this out for a few families.

If you take for comparison with what I send you, the "British Flora," or Koch's "Flora Germanica," or Godron's "Flora of France," and mark the "close species" on the same principle, you will doubtless find a much greater number. Of course you will not infer from this that the two floras differ in this respect; since the difference is probably owing to the facts that (1) there have not been so many observers here bent upon detecting differences; and (2) our species, thanks mostly to Dr. Torrey and myself, have been more thoroughly castigated. What stands for one species in the "Manual" would figure in almost any European flora as two, three, or more, in a very considerable number of cases.

If you compare what I’m sending you with the "British Flora," Koch's "Flora Germanica," or Godron's "Flora of France," and highlight the "close species" based on the same criteria, you'll likely find a lot more. Of course, you shouldn’t conclude that the two floras are different in this aspect; the difference probably comes from the facts that (1) there haven’t been as many observers here focused on spotting differences, and (2) our species have been more thoroughly examined, thanks mainly to Dr. Torrey and me. What counts as one species in the "Manual" would usually be seen as two, three, or more in many European floras.

In boldly reducing nominal species J. Hooker is doing a good work; but his vocation—like that of any other reformer—exposes him to temptations and dangers.

In confidently narrowing down nominal species, J. Hooker is doing valuable work; however, his role—like that of any other reformer—exposes him to temptations and risks.

Because you have shown that a and b are so connected by intermediate forms that we cannot do otherwise than regard them as variations of one species, we may not conclude that c and d, differing much in the same way and to the same degree, are of one species, before an equal amount of evidence is actually obtained. That is, when two sets of individuals exhibit any grave differences, the burden of proof of their common origin lies with the person who takes that view; and each case must be decided on its own evidence, and not on analogy, if our conclusions in this way are to be of real value. Of course we must often jump at conclusions from imperfect evidence. I should like to write an essay on species some day; but before I should have time to do it, in my plodding way, I hope you or Hooker will do it, and much better far. I am most glad to be in conference with Hooker and yourself on these matters, and I think we may, or rather you may, in a few years settle the question as to whether Agassiz's or Hooker's views are correct; they are certainly widely different.

Because you've demonstrated that a and b are so interconnected by intermediate forms that we can't help but see them as variations of one species, we can't conclude that c and d, which differ greatly in the same way and to the same extent, are also one species without obtaining similar evidence. In other words, when two groups of individuals show significant differences, the proof of their common origin falls on the person who believes that; each case needs to be evaluated based on its own evidence, not just by analogy, if we want our conclusions to be truly valuable. Of course, we often have to make conclusions based on incomplete evidence. I would like to write an essay on species someday; however, before I find the time to do it in my slow manner, I hope you or Hooker will take it on, and do it much better. I’m very glad to be discussing these issues with you and Hooker, and I think that in a few years, you might settle the debate on whether Agassiz's or Hooker's views are correct, as they are certainly quite different.

Apropos to this, many thanks for the paper containing your experiments on seeds exposed to sea water. Why has nobody thought of trying the experiment before, instead of taking it for granted that salt water kills seeds? I shall have it nearly all reprinted in "Silliman's Journal" as a nut for Agassiz to crack.

Regarding this, thank you for the paper on your experiments with seeds exposed to seawater. Why hasn't anyone thought to try this experiment before, assuming that saltwater kills seeds? I plan to have most of it reprinted in "Silliman's Journal" as something for Agassiz to tackle.

LETTER 325. TO ASA GRAY. Down, May 2nd {1856?}

I have received your very kind note of April 8th. In truth it is preposterous in me to give you hints; but it will give me real pleasure to write to you just as I talk to Hooker, who says my questions are sometimes suggestive owing to my comparing the ranges, etc., in different kingdoms of Nature. I will make no further apologies about my presumption; but will just tell you (though I am certain there will be VERY little new in what I suggest and ask) the points on which I am very anxious to hear about. I forget whether you include Arctic America, but if so, for comparison with other parts of world, I would exclude the Arctic and Alpine-Arctic, as belonging to a quite distinct category. When excluding the naturalised, I think De Candolle must be right in advising the exclusion (giving list) of plants exclusively found in cultivated land, even when it is not known that they have been introduced by man. I would give list of temperate plants (if any) found in Eastern Asia, China, and Japan, and not elsewhere. Nothing would give me a better idea of the flora of United States than the proportion of its genera to all the genera which are confined to America; and the proportion of genera confined to America and Eastern Asia with Japan; the remaining genera would be common to America and Europe and the rest of world; I presume it would be impossible to show any especial affinity in genera, if ever so few, between America and Western Europe. America might be related to Eastern Asia (always excluding Arctic forms) by a genus having the same species confined to these two regions; or it might be related by the genus having different species, the genus itself not being found elsewhere. The relation of the genera (excluding identical species) seems to me a most important element in geographical distribution often ignored, and I presume of more difficult application in plants than in animals, owing to the wider ranges of plants; but I find in New Zealand (from Hooker) that the consideration of genera with representative species tells the story of relationship even plainer than the identity of the species with the different parts of the world. I should like to see the genera of the United States, say 500 (excluding Arctic and Alpine) divided into three classes, with the proportions given thus:—

I received your kind note from April 8th. Honestly, it’s a bit ridiculous for me to offer suggestions, but it would genuinely make me happy to write to you just as I would speak to Hooker, who says my inquiries can be insightful since I compare ranges and such in different realms of nature. I won’t make any more excuses for my boldness; instead, I’ll just share the topics I’m really eager to hear about, even though I know there won’t be much that’s new in what I propose. I can’t remember if you include Arctic America, but if you do, for the sake of comparison with other parts of the world, I’d suggest excluding the Arctic and Alpine-Arctic since they belong to a completely different category. When it comes to naturalized species, I think De Candolle is right in recommending that we exclude (with a list) plants that are found only in cultivated areas, even if we don’t know if they were introduced by humans. I’d ask for a list of temperate plants (if there are any) that are found in Eastern Asia, China, and Japan, but not elsewhere. It would really help me understand the flora of the United States better if I could see the ratio of its genera to all the genera that are exclusive to America; and the ratio of genera unique to America and Eastern Asia with Japan. The remaining genera would be shared by America, Europe, and the rest of the world. I assume it would be impossible to demonstrate any special connection in genera, even if there are a few, between America and Western Europe. America might be linked to Eastern Asia (excluding Arctic species) through a genus that has the same species found only in these two regions; or it could be related by a genus that contains different species and is not found elsewhere. The relationship of genera (excluding identical species) seems to me a really important factor in geographical distribution that is often overlooked, and I presume it’s more challenging to apply to plants than to animals, due to the broader ranges of plants. However, I’ve discovered in New Zealand (thanks to Hooker) that considering genera alongside representative species reveals relationships even more clearly than simply matching identical species across different regions of the world. I would love to see the genera of the United States, say 500 (excluding Arctic and Alpine), categorized into three classes, with the proportions displayed like this:—

100/500 American genera;

100/500 American plant genera;

200/500 Old World genera, but not having any identical species in common;

200/500 Old World genera, but having some identical species in common;

200/500 Old World genera, but sharing some identical species in common;

Supposing that these 200 genera included 600 U.S. plants, then the 600 would be the denominator to the fraction of the species common to the Old World. But I am running on at a foolish length.

Supposing that these 200 genera included 600 U.S. plants, then the 600 would be the denominator for the fraction of species common to the Old World. But I'm rambling on unnecessarily.

There is an interesting discussion in De Candolle (about pages 503-514) on the relation of the size of families to the average range of the individual species; I cannot but think, from some facts which I collected long before De Candolle appeared, that he is on wrong scent in having taken families (owing to their including too great a diversity in the constitution of the species), but that if he had taken genera, he would have found that the individual species in large genera range over a greater area than do the species in small genera: I think if you have materials that this would be well worth working out, for it is a very singular relation.

There’s a fascinating discussion in De Candolle (around pages 503-514) about the relationship between family size and the average range of individual species. I can’t help but think, based on some facts I gathered long before De Candolle came out, that he’s looking in the wrong direction by focusing on families (since they include too much variety in species). I believe if he had focused on genera, he would have discovered that individual species in large genera cover a larger area than those in small genera. If you have the resources, this would definitely be worth exploring, as it presents a really unique relationship.

With respect to naturalised plants: are any social with you, which are not so in their parent country? I am surprised that the importance of this has not more struck De Candolle. Of these naturalised plants are any or many more variable in your opinion than the average of your United States plants? I am aware how very vague this must be; but De Candolle has stated that the naturalised plants do not present varieties; but being very variable and presenting distinct varieties seems to me rather a different case: if you would kindly take the trouble to answer this question I should be very much obliged, whether or no you will enter on such points in your essay.

Regarding naturalized plants: are there any social ones that aren't so in their country of origin? I'm surprised that De Candolle hasn't emphasized this more. Do you think that any of these naturalized plants are more variable than the average plants in the United States? I know this is quite vague, but De Candolle mentioned that naturalized plants don’t show variations; however, being very variable and showing distinct varieties seems like a different situation to me. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to answer this question, regardless of whether you plan to address such points in your essay.

With respect to such plants, which have their southern limits within your area, are the individuals ever or often stunted in their growth or unhealthy? I have in vain endeavoured to find any botanist who has observed this point; but I have seen some remarks by Barton on the trees in United States. Trees seem in this respect to behave rather differently from other plants.

Regarding those plants that reach their southern limits in your area, do the individuals often appear stunted or unhealthy? I've tried in vain to find a botanist who has looked into this; however, I've come across some comments by Barton about the trees in the United States. Trees seem to behave quite differently than other plants in this regard.

It would be a very curious point, but I fear you would think it out of your essay, to compare the list of European plants in Tierra del Fuego (in Hooker) with those in North America; for, without multiple creation, I think we must admit that all now in T. del Fuego must have travelled through North America, and so far they do concern you.

It would be an interesting point, but I worry you might see it as irrelevant to your essay, to compare the list of European plants in Tierra del Fuego (in Hooker) with those in North America; because, without the idea of multiple creations, I believe we have to accept that all the plants currently in T. del Fuego must have migrated through North America, and in that regard, they do relate to you.

The discussion on social plants (vague as the terms and facts are) in De Candolle strikes me as the best which I have ever seen: two points strike me as eminently remarkable in them; that they should ever be social close to their extreme limits; and secondly, that species having an extremely confined range, yet should be social where they do occur: I should be infinitely obliged for any cases either by letter or publicly on these heads, more especially in regard to a species remaining or ceasing to be social on the confines of its range.

The discussion on social plants (even though the terms and facts are a bit unclear) in De Candolle seems to be the best I’ve ever encountered: two things stand out to me as particularly noteworthy; first, that they can be social even near their outer limits; and second, that species with a very limited range can still be social where they’re found. I would greatly appreciate any examples, either in writing or publicly, on these topics, especially regarding a species staying or stopping being social at the edge of its range.

There is one other point on which I individually should be extremely much obliged, if you could spare the time to think a little bit and inform me: viz., whether there are any cases of the same species being more variable in United States than in other countries in which it is found, or in different parts of the United States? Wahlenberg says generally that the same species in going south become more variable than in extreme north. Even still more am I anxious to know whether any of the genera, which have most of their species horribly variable (as Rubus or Hieracium are) in Europe, or other parts of the world, are less variable in the United States; or, the reverse case, whether you have any odious genera with you which are less odious in other countries? Any information on this head would be a real kindness to me.

There’s one more thing I’d really appreciate if you could take the time to think about and let me know: are there any instances where the same species is more variable in the United States than in other countries where it's found, or in different regions within the United States? Wahlenberg generally states that species tend to become more variable as you go south compared to the far north. I’m also very eager to find out if any genera that have a lot of highly variable species (like Rubus or Hieracium) in Europe or elsewhere are less variable in the United States; or, conversely, if there are any problematic genera in your area that are less problematic in other countries? Any information on this would be really helpful to me.

I suppose your flora is too great; but a simple list in close columns in small type of all the species, genera, and families, each consecutively numbered, has always struck me as most useful; and Hooker regrets that he did not give such list in introduction to New Zealand and other Flora. I am sure I have given you a larger dose of questions than you bargained for, and I have kept my word and treated you just as I do Hooker. Nevertheless, if anything occurs to me during the next two months, I will write freely, believing that you will forgive me and not think me very presumptuous.

I guess your collection of plants is huge; however, a straightforward list in compact columns with small text for all the species, genera, and families, each listed in order, has always seemed really useful to me. Hooker wishes he had included such a list in the introduction to New Zealand and other Flora. I know I’ve thrown more questions your way than you expected, and I’ve kept my promise and treated you just like I do Hooker. Still, if anything comes to mind in the next two months, I’ll write to you openly, trusting that you’ll forgive me and won’t think I’m too forward.

How well De Candolle shows the necessity of comparing nearly equal areas for proportion of families!

How effectively De Candolle demonstrates the need to compare nearly equal areas for family proportions!

I have re-read this letter, and it is really not worth sending, except for my own sake. I see I forgot, in beginning, to state that it appeared to me that the six heads of your Essay included almost every point which could be desired, and therefore that I had little to say.

I’ve read this letter again, and honestly, it’s not worth sending, except for my own peace of mind. I realize I forgot to mention at the start that it seems to me the six points in your essay cover almost everything that could be included, so I don’t have much to add.

LETTER 326. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(326/1. On July 5th, 1856, Darwin wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:—

"I am going mad and am in despair over your confounded Antarctic island flora. Will you read over the Tristan list, and see if my remarks on it are at all accurate. I cannot make out why you consider the vegetation so Fuegian.")

"I’m going crazy and feeling hopeless about your annoying Antarctic island plants. Can you check the Tristan list and see if my comments on it are accurate? I can’t figure out why you think the vegetation is so Fuegian."

Down, 8th {July, 1856}.

Down, July 8, 1856.

I do hope that this note may arrive in time to save you trouble in one respect. I am perfectly ashamed of myself, for I find in introduction to Flora of Fuegia (326/2. "Flora Antarctica," page 216. "Though only 1,000 miles distant from the Cape of Good Hope, and 3,000 from the Strait of Magalhaens, the botany of this island {Tristan d'Acunha} is far more intimately allied to that of Fuegia than Africa." Hooker goes on to say that only Phylica and Pelargonium are Cape forms, while seven species, or one-quarter of the flora, "are either natives of Fuegia or typical of South American botany, and the ferns and Lycopodia exhibit a still stronger affinity.") a short discussion on Tristan plants, which though scored {i.e. marked in pencil} I had quite forgotten at the time, and had thought only of looking into introduction to New Zealand Flora. It was very stupid of me. In my sketch I am forced to pick out the most striking cases of species which favour the multiple creation doctrine, without indeed great continental extensions are admitted. Of the many wonderful cases in your books, the one which strikes me most is that list of species, which you made for me, common to New Zealand and America, and confined to southern hemisphere; and in this list those common to Chile and New Zealand seem to me the most wondrous. I have copied these out and enclosed them. Now I will promise to ask no more questions, if you will tell me a little about these. What I want to know is, whether any or many of them are mountain plants of Chile, so as to bring them in some degree (like the Chonos plants) under the same category with the Fuegian plants? I see that all the genera (Edwardsia even having Sandwich Island and Indian species) are wide-ranging genera, except Myosurus, which seems extra wonderful. Do any of these genera cling to seaside? Are the other species of these genera wide rangers? Do be a good Christian and not hate me.

I hope this note reaches you in time to save you some trouble. I'm really ashamed of myself because I found a short discussion on Tristan plants in the introduction to *Flora of Fuegia* (326/2. “Flora Antarctica,” page 216. “Though only 1,000 miles from the Cape of Good Hope and 3,000 from the Strait of Magalhaens, the botany of this island {Tristan d'Acunha} is much more closely related to that of Fuegia than to Africa.” Hooker also notes that only Phylica and Pelargonium are forms from the Cape, while seven species, or one-quarter of the flora, “are either native to Fuegia or characteristic of South American botany, and the ferns and Lycopodia show an even stronger connection.”) which I had completely forgotten about at the time and only considered looking into the introduction to *New Zealand Flora*. I was really foolish. In my sketch, I'm forced to highlight the most striking examples of species that support the multiple creation theory, even though significant continental extensions are not acknowledged. Among the many incredible examples in your books, the one that stands out to me the most is the list of species you compiled for me, which are common to New Zealand and America, and limited to the southern hemisphere; in this list, those shared by Chile and New Zealand strike me as particularly amazing. I've copied them out and enclosed them. I promise I won’t ask any more questions if you can tell me a bit about these. What I really want to know is if any or many of them are mountain plants from Chile, so they can be somewhat classified together with the Fuegian plants (like the Chonos plants)? I see that all the genera (even Edwardsia, which has species from the Sandwich Islands and India) are widespread, except for Myosurus, which seems especially unique. Do any of these genera stick to the seaside? Are the other species in these genera also widespread? Please be kind and don’t hold a grudge against me.

I began last night to re-read your Galapagos paper, and to my taste it is quite admirable: I see in it some of the points which I thought best in A. De Candolle! Such is my memory.

I started re-reading your Galapagos paper last night, and I think it's really impressive: I notice some of the points that I liked most in A. De Candolle! That's how I remember it.

Lyell will not express any opinion on continental extensions. (326/3. See Letters 47, 48.)

Lyell will not share any views on continental extensions. (326/3. See Letters 47, 48.)

LETTER 327. TO C. LYELL. Down, July 8th {1856}.

Very many thanks for your two notes, and especially for Maury's map: also for books which you are going to lend me.

Thank you so much for your two notes, and especially for Maury's map; also for the books you're going to lend me.

I am sorry you cannot give any verdict on continental extensions; and I infer that you think my argument of not much weight against such extensions; I know I wish I could believe. (327/1. This paragraph is published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 78; it refers to a letter (June 25th, 1856, "Life and Letters," II., page 74) giving Darwin's arguments against the doctrine of "Continental Extension." See Letters 47, 48.)

I’m sorry you can’t come to any conclusion about continental extensions; it seems you think my argument doesn't hold much value against those extensions. I really wish I could believe otherwise. (327/1. This paragraph is published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 78; it refers to a letter (June 25th, 1856, "Life and Letters," II., page 74) giving Darwin's arguments against the doctrine of "Continental Extension." See Letters 47, 48.)

I have been having a look at Maury (which I once before looked at), and in respect to Madeira & Co. I must say, that the chart seems to me against land-extension explaining the introduction of organic beings. Madeira, the Canaries and Azores are so tied together, that I should have thought they ought to have been connected by some bank, if changes of level had been connected with their organic relation. The Azores ought, too, to have shown more connection with America. I had sometimes speculated whether icebergs could account for the greater number of European plants and their more northern character on the Azores, compared with Madeira; but it seems dangerous until boulders are found there. (327/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 112, for a letter (April 26th, 1858) in which Darwin exults over the discovery of boulders on the Azores and the fulfilment of the prophecy, which he was characteristically half inclined to ascribe to Lyell.)

I've been looking at Maury again (which I checked out before), and regarding Madeira & Co., I have to say that the chart seems to contradict the idea that land extension explains the arrival of living organisms. Madeira, the Canaries, and the Azores are so connected that I would think they should have been joined by some land bridge if level changes were related to their biological connections. The Azores should also show a stronger link to America. I sometimes wondered if icebergs could explain the larger number of European plants and their more northern characteristics on the Azores compared to Madeira, but that seems risky until boulders are found there. (327/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 112, for a letter (April 26th, 1858) in which Darwin celebrates the discovery of boulders on the Azores and the fulfillment of the prophecy, which he was characteristically half inclined to credit to Lyell.)

One of the more curious points in Maury is, as it strikes me, in the little change which about 9,000 feet of sudden elevation would make in the continent visible, and what a prodigious change 9,000 feet subsidence would make! Is the difference due to denudation during elevation? Certainly 12,000 feet elevation would make a prodigious change. I have just been quoting you in my essay on ice carrying seeds in the southern hemisphere, but this will not do in all the cases. I have had a week of such hard labour in getting up the relations of all the Antarctic flora from Hooker's admirable works. Oddly enough, I have just finished in great detail, giving evidence of coolness in tropical regions during the Glacial epoch, and the consequent migration of organisms through the tropics. There are a good many difficulties, but upon the whole it explains much. This has been a favourite notion with me, almost since I wrote on erratic boulders of the south. It harmonises with the modification of species; and without admitting this awful postulate, the Glacial epoch in the south and tropics does not work in well. About Atlantis, I doubt whether the Canary Islands are as much more related to the continent as they ought to be, if formerly connected by continuous land.

One of the more interesting points in Maury is, as it seems to me, the small change that a sudden elevation of about 9,000 feet would make in the visible continent, and how enormous a change a 9,000 feet drop would create! Is the difference due to erosion during elevation? Definitely, a 12,000 feet elevation would lead to a massive change. I've just been quoting you in my essay about how ice carries seeds in the southern hemisphere, but that doesn’t apply in all situations. I've spent a week doing intense work gathering the relationships of all the Antarctic flora from Hooker's excellent research. Interestingly, I've just finished a detailed account providing evidence of cooler conditions in tropical regions during the Ice Age, and the resulting migration of organisms through the tropics. There are quite a few challenges, but overall it explains a lot. This has been a favorite idea of mine for quite a while, almost since I wrote about the erratic boulders in the south. It ties in with the modification of species; and without accepting this significant assumption, the Ice Age in the south and tropics doesn't fit together well. Regarding Atlantis, I’m not sure the Canary Islands are as closely related to the continent as they should be if they were once connected by continuous land.

Hooker, with whom I have formerly discussed the notion of the world or great belts of it having been cooler, though he at first saw great difficulties (and difficulties there are great enough), I think is much inclined to adopt the idea. With modification of specific forms it explains some wondrous odd facts in distribution.

Hooker, with whom I’ve previously talked about the idea that the world or large sections of it used to be cooler, though he initially found significant challenges (and there are indeed substantial challenges), now seems more inclined to accept the concept. With some adjustments to specific forms, it clarifies some truly strange facts about distribution.

But I shall never stop if I get on this subject, on which I have been at work, sometimes in triumph, sometimes in despair, for the last month.

But I will never stop if I get on this topic, which I have been working on, sometimes feeling victorious, sometimes feeling hopeless, for the past month.

LETTER 328. ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Received August 20th, 1856.

LETTER 328. ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Received August 20, 1856.

I enclose you a proof of the last page, that you may see what our flora amounts to. The genera of the Cryptogams (Ferns down to Hepaticae) are illustrated in fourteen crowded plates. So that the volume has become rather formidable as a class-book, which it is intended for.

I’m sending you a proof of the last page so you can see the extent of our flora. The genera of the Cryptogams (from Ferns to Hepaticae) are depicted in fourteen detailed plates. As a result, the volume has become quite substantial as a class book, which is its intended purpose.

I have revised the last proofs to-day. The publishers will bring it out some time in August. Meanwhile, I am going to have a little holiday, which I have earned, little as I can spare the time for it. And my wife and I start on Friday to visit my mother and friends in West New York, and on our way back I will look in upon the scientific meeting at Albany on the 20th inst., or later, just to meet some old friends there.

I revised the final proofs today. The publishers will release it sometime in August. In the meantime, I'm going to take a little break, even though I can hardly afford the time for it. My wife and I are leaving Friday to visit my mom and friends in West New York, and on our way back, I plan to drop by the scientific meeting in Albany on the 20th or later, just to catch up with some old friends.

Why could not you come over, on the urgent invitation given to European savans—and free passage provided back and forth in the steamers? Yet I believe nobody is coming. Will you not come next year, if a special invitation is sent you on the same terms?

Why couldn’t you come over when the European scholars were urgently invited—and free rides were offered on the steamers? Yet I believe no one is coming. Will you not come next year if a special invite is sent to you under the same conditions?

Boott lately sent me your photograph, which (though not a very perfect one) I am well pleased to have...

Boott recently sent me your photo, which (although not perfect) I'm really happy to have...

But there is another question in your last letter—one about which a person can only give an impression—and my impression is that, speaking of plants of a well-known flora, what we call intermediate varieties are generally less numerous in individuals than the two states which they connect. That this would be the case in a flora where things are put as they naturally should be, I do not much doubt; and the wider are your views about species (say, for instance, with Dr. Hooker's very latitudinarian notions) the more plainly would this appear. But practically two things stand hugely in the way of any application of the fact or principle, if such it be. 1. Our choice of what to take as the typical forms very often is not free. We take, e.g., for one of them the particular form of which Linnaeus, say, happened to have a specimen sent him, and on which {he} established the species; and I know more than one case in which that is a rare form of a common species; the other variety will perhaps be the opposite extreme—whether the most common or not, or will be what L. or {illegible} described as a 2nd species. Here various intermediate forms may be the most abundant. 2. It is just the same thing now, in respect to specimens coming in from our new western country. The form which first comes, and is described and named, determines the specific character, and this long sticks as the type, though in fact it may be far from the most common form. Yet of plants very well known in all their aspects, I can think of several of which we recognise two leading forms, and rarely see anything really intermediate, such as our Mentha borealis, its hairy and its smooth varieties.

But there’s another question in your last letter—one that a person can only give an impression on—and my impression is that, when talking about plants from a well-known flora, the intermediate varieties are generally less common in number than the two states they connect. I don't doubt that this would hold true in a flora where things are categorized as they naturally are; the broader your views on species (like Dr. Hooker's very broad ideas), the clearer this would become. However, there are two major practical obstacles to applying this fact or principle, if it is indeed a principle. 1. Our selection of what we consider the typical forms is often not arbitrary. For instance, we might choose a specific form that Linnaeus received a specimen of, which he used to establish the species; and I know of several instances where that form is quite rare among a common species. The other variety might be the opposite extreme—whether it's the most common or not, or it might be what Linnaeus or another source described as a second species. In this case, various intermediate forms could be the most abundant. 2. The same situation applies now with specimens coming in from our new western territories. The first form that arrives, gets described, and is named sets the specific character, and this designation tends to stick around as the type, even though it may not be the most common form. Still, among plants well-known in all their varieties, I can think of several where we recognize two main forms and rarely see anything truly intermediate, like our Mentha borealis with its hairy and smooth varieties.

Your former query about the variability of naturalised plants as compared with others of same genera, I had not forgotten, but have taken no steps to answer. I was going hereafter to take up our list of naturalised plants and consider them—it did not fall into my plan to do it yet. Off-hand I can only say that it does not strike me that our introduced plants generally are more variable, nor as variable, perhaps, as the indigenous. But this is a mere guess. When you get my sheets of first part of article in "Silliman's Journal," remember that I shall be most glad of free critical comments; and the earlier I get them the greater use they will be to me...

Your earlier question about how much variability there is among naturalized plants compared to others in the same genera hasn’t slipped my mind, but I haven’t taken any steps to answer it yet. I planned to review our list of naturalized plants and think about it, but it hasn’t been part of my agenda until now. From what I can tell off the top of my head, it doesn’t seem to me that our introduced plants are generally more variable, or perhaps even as variable, as the native ones. But this is just a guess. When you receive my draft of the first part of the article in "Silliman's Journal," I would really appreciate your honest feedback; getting your thoughts sooner would be even more helpful to me...

One more favour. Do not, I pray you, speak of your letters troubling me. I should be sorry indeed to have you stop, or write more rarely, even though mortified to find that I can so seldom give you the information you might reasonably expect.

One more favor. Please, don’t mention your letters bothering me. I would really hate for you to stop or write less often, even though I feel bad that I can rarely provide you with the information you might reasonably expect.

LETTER 329. TO ASA GRAY. Down, August 24th {1856}.

I am much obliged for your letter, which has been very interesting to me. Your "indefinite" answers are perhaps not the least valuable part; for Botany has been followed in so much more a philosophical spirit than Zoology, that I scarcely ever like to trust any general remark in Zoology without I find that botanists concur. Thus, with respect to intermediate varieties being rare, I found it put, as I suspected, much too strongly (without the limitations and doubts which you point out) by a very good naturalist, Mr. Wollaston, in regard to insects; and if it could be established as true it would, I think, be a curious point. Your answer in regard to the introduced plants not being particularly variable, agrees with an answer which Mr. H.C. Watson has sent me in regard to British agrarian plants, or such (whether or no naturalised) {as} are now found only in cultivated land. It seems to me very odd, without any theoretical notions of any kind, that such plants should not be variable; but the evidence seems against it.

I really appreciate your letter; it was very engaging. Your "indefinite" answers might be the most valuable part, since Botany has been approached in a much more philosophical way than Zoology. I rarely trust any general statements in Zoology unless I see that botanists agree. For instance, regarding the rarity of intermediate varieties, I found it stated, as I suspected, much too strongly (without the limitations and doubts you mentioned) by a well-respected naturalist, Mr. Wollaston, concerning insects. If it could be proven true, I think it would be an interesting point. Your response about introduced plants not being particularly variable aligns with the reply I received from Mr. H.C. Watson about British agrarian plants, whether naturalized or just found in cultivated areas. It seems quite strange, without any theoretical assumptions, that such plants wouldn’t be variable, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Very sincere thanks for your kind invitation to the United States: in truth there is nothing which I should enjoy more; but my health is not, and will, I suppose, never be strong enough, except for the quietest routine life in the country. I shall be particularly glad of the sheets of your paper on geographical distribution; but it really is unlikely in the highest degree that I could make any suggestions.

Thank you so much for your kind invitation to the United States. Honestly, there's nothing I would enjoy more; however, my health isn't, and I suppose will never be strong enough for anything beyond a peaceful, routine life in the countryside. I would be especially happy to receive the sheets of your paper on geographical distribution; but it's very unlikely that I could offer any suggestions.

With respect to my remark that I supposed that there were but few plants common to Europe and the United States, not ranging to the Arctic regions; it was founded on vague grounds, and partly on range of animals. But I took H.C. Watson's remarks (1835) and in the table at the end I found that out of 499 plants believed to be common to the Old and New World, only 110 did not range on either side of the Atlantic up to the Arctic region. And on writing to Mr. Watson to ask whether he knew of any plants not ranging northward of Britain (say 55 deg) which were in common, he writes to me that he imagines there are very few; with Mr. Syme's assistance he found some 20 to 25 species thus circumstanced, but many of them, from one cause or other, he considered doubtful. As examples, he specifies to me, with doubt, Chrysosplenium oppositifolium; Isnardia palustris; Astragalus hypoglottis; Thlaspi alpestre; Arenaria verna; Lythrum hyssopifolium.

Regarding my comment that I thought there were only a few plants shared between Europe and the United States that didn't extend to the Arctic regions; it was based on unclear information, and partly on the distribution of animals. However, I referred to H.C. Watson's remarks (1835) and in the table at the end I discovered that out of 499 plants thought to be common to both the Old and New Worlds, only 110 did not range on either side of the Atlantic up to the Arctic region. When I wrote to Mr. Watson to ask if he knew of any plants that didn't grow north of Britain (around 55 degrees) which were shared, he responded that he thought there were very few. With Mr. Syme's help, he identified about 20 to 25 species in that situation, but he considered many of them uncertain for various reasons. As examples, he mentioned with uncertainty: Chrysosplenium oppositifolium; Isnardia palustris; Astragalus hypoglottis; Thlaspi alpestre; Arenaria verna; Lythrum hyssopifolium.

I hope that you will be inclined to work out for your next paper, what number, of your 321 in common, do not range to Arctic regions. Such plants seem exposed to such much greater difficulties in diffusion. Very many thanks for all your kindness and answers to my questions.

I hope you'll be willing to figure out for your next paper how many of your 321 in common don’t extend to Arctic regions. Those plants appear to face much greater challenges in spreading. Thank you so much for all your kindness and for answering my questions.

P.S.—If anything should occur to you on variability of naturalised or agrarian plants, I hope that you will be so kind as to let me hear, as it is a point which interests me greatly.

P.S.—If you happen to think of anything about the variability of naturalized or agricultural plants, I would appreciate it if you could let me know, as it's a topic that interests me a lot.

LETTER 330. ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Cambridge, Mass., September 23rd, 1856.

LETTER 330. ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN. Cambridge, Mass., September 23, 1856.

Dr. Engelmann, of St. Louis, Missouri, who knew European botany well before he came here, and has been an acute observer generally for twenty years or more in this country, in reply to your question I put to him, promptly said introduced plants are not particularly variable—are not so variable as the indigenous plants generally, perhaps.

Dr. Engelmann, from St. Louis, Missouri, who was well-versed in European botany before arriving here and has been a keen observer for over twenty years in this country, quickly responded to my question by saying that introduced plants aren't particularly variable—they're not as variable as the native plants, perhaps.

The difficulty of answering your questions, as to whether there are any plants social here which are not so in the Old World, is that I know so little about European plants in nature. The following is all I have to contribute. Lately, I took Engelmann and Agassiz on a botanical excursion over half a dozen miles of one of our seaboard counties; when they both remarked that they never saw in Europe altogether half so much barberry as in that trip. Through all this district B. vulgaris may be said to have become a truly social plant in neglected fields and copses, and even penetrating into rather close old woods. I always supposed that birds diffused the seeds. But I am not clear that many of them touch the berries. At least, these hang on the bushes over winter in the greatest abundance. Perhaps the barberry belongs to a warmer country than north of Europe, and finds itself more at home in our sunny summers. Yet out of New England it seems not to spread at all.

The challenge of answering your questions about whether there are any plants here that aren't found in the Old World is that I know very little about European plants in their natural environment. Here's all I can share. Recently, I took Engelmann and Agassiz on a botanical trip covering over six miles in one of our coastal counties; during the trip, they both noted that they had never seen as much barberry in Europe as they did on that outing. Throughout this area, B. vulgaris has really become a common plant in abandoned fields and thickets, and it's even spreading into some dense old forests. I always thought birds spread the seeds, but I'm not sure many of them actually eat the berries. At least, the berries stay on the bushes throughout winter in great numbers. Maybe the barberry is native to a warmer region than northern Europe and feels more at home in our sunny summers. However, it doesn’t seem to spread much outside of New England.

Maruta Cotula, fide Engelmann, is a scattered and rather scarce plant in Germany. Here, from Boston to St. Louis, it covers the roadsides, and is one of our most social plants. But this plant is doubtless a native of a hotter country than North Germany.

Maruta Cotula, according to Engelmann, is a scattered and quite rare plant in Germany. Here, from Boston to St. Louis, it lines the roadsides and is one of our most sociable plants. However, this plant is certainly native to a warmer region than Northern Germany.

St. John's-wort (Hypericum perforatum) is an intrusive weed in all hilly pastures, etc., and may fairly be called a social plant. In Germany it is not so found, fide Engelmann.

St. John's-wort (Hypericum perforatum) is an invasive weed in all hilly pastures and similar areas, and it could definitely be described as a social plant. In Germany, it isn't commonly found there, according to Engelmann.

Verbascum Thapsus is diffused over all the country, is vastly more common here than in Germany, fide Engelmann.

Verbascum Thapsus is spread all over the country and is much more common here than in Germany, according to Engelmann.

I suppose Erodium cicutarium was brought to America with cattle from Spain: it seems to be widely spread over South America out of the Tropics. In Atlantic U.S. it is very scarce and local. But it fills California and the interior of Oregon quite back to the west slope of the Rocky Mountains. Fremont mentions it as the first spring food for his cattle when he reached the western side of the Rocky Mountains. And hardly anybody will believe me when I declare it an introduced plant. I daresay it is equally abundant in Spain. I doubt if it is more so.

I think Erodium cicutarium was brought to America with cattle from Spain: it seems to be widespread in South America outside the Tropics. In the eastern U.S., it’s very rare and found only in specific areas. But it’s everywhere in California and extends into the interior of Oregon all the way to the west slope of the Rocky Mountains. Fremont notes that it was the first spring food for his cattle when he got to the western side of the Rocky Mountains. And hardly anyone believes me when I say it’s an introduced plant. I bet it’s just as common in Spain. I doubt it’s more so.

Engelmann and I have been noting the species truly indigenous here which, becoming ruderal or campestral, are increasing in the number of individuals instead of diminishing as the country becomes more settled and forests removed. The list of our wild plants which have become true weeds is larger than I had supposed, and these have probably all of them increased their geographical range—at least, have multiplied in numbers in the Northern States since settlements.

Engelmann and I have been observing the species that are genuinely native to this area, which, as they adapt to human environments or open fields, are actually increasing in number instead of decreasing as the land becomes more developed and forests are cleared. The list of our wild plants that have turned into real weeds is bigger than I expected, and it's likely that most of them have expanded their geographical range—at the very least, they have multiplied in the Northern States since the settlements were established.

Some time ago I sent a copy of the first part of my little essay on the statistics (330/1. "Statistics of the Flora of the Northern U.S." ("Silliman's Journal," XXII. and XXIII.)) of our Northern States plants to Trubner & Co., 12, Paternoster Row, to be thence posted to you. It may have been delayed or failed, so I post another from here.

Some time ago, I sent a copy of the first part of my short essay on the statistics (330/1. "Statistics of the Flora of the Northern U.S." ("Silliman's Journal," XXII. and XXIII.)) of our Northern States plants to Trubner & Co., 12, Paternoster Row, to be sent to you. It might have been delayed or even not delivered, so I'm sending another copy from here.

This is only a beginning. Range of species in latitude must next be tabulated—disjoined species catalogued (i.e. those occurring in remote and entirely separated areas—e.g. Phryma, Monotropa uniflora, etc.)—then some of the curious questions you have suggested—the degree of consanguinity between the related species of our country and other countries, and the comparative range of species in large and small genera, etc., etc. Now, is it worth while to go on at this length of detail? There is no knowing how much space it may cover. Yet, after all, facts in all their fullness is what is wanted, and those not gathered to support (or even to test) any foregone conclusions. It will be prosy, but it may be useful.

This is just the beginning. Next, we need to list the range of species by latitude—cataloging disjointed species (i.e., those found in remote and entirely separated areas—like Phryma, Monotropa uniflora, etc.)—then address some of the interesting questions you've raised—the level of relatedness between the species from our country and those from other countries, and the comparative range of species in large and small genera, and so on. Now, is it really worth it to go into this level of detail? We have no idea how much space this might take up. Yet, in the end, what’s needed is a thorough presentation of facts, not to support (or even to challenge) any preconceived conclusions. It might be dry, but it could be useful.

Then I have no time properly to revise MSS. and correct oversights. To my vexation, in my short list of our alpine species I have left out, in some unaccountable manner, two of the most characteristic—viz., Cassiope hypnoides and Loiseleuria procumbens. Please add them on page 28.

Then I don’t have enough time to properly review the manuscripts and fix errors. Unfortunately, in my brief list of our alpine species, I’ve somehow left out two of the most distinctive ones—namely, Cassiope hypnoides and Loiseleuria procumbens. Please add them on page 28.

There is much to be said about our introduced plants. But now, and for some time to come, I must be thinking of quite different matters. I mean to continue this essay in the January number—for which my MSS. must be ready about the 1st of November.

There’s a lot to discuss about the plants we've brought in. However, right now, and for the foreseeable future, I need to focus on different things. I plan to continue this essay in the January issue, so I need to have my manuscripts ready by around November 1st.

I have not yet attempted to count them up; but of course I am prepared to believe that fully three-fourths of our species common to Europe will {be} found to range northward to the Arctic regions. I merely meant that I had in mind a number that do not; I think the number will not be very small; and I thought you were under the impression that very few absolutely did not so extend northwards. The most striking case I know is that of Convallaria majalis, in the mountains {of} Virginia and North Carolina, and not northward. I believe I mentioned this to you before.

I haven't counted them yet, but of course, I believe that around three-quarters of our species common to Europe will be found to range northward into the Arctic regions. I just meant that I was thinking of a number that don't; I don't think that number will be very small, and I thought you believed that very few absolutely do not extend northward. The most notable example I know is Convallaria majalis, found in the mountains of Virginia and North Carolina, but not further north. I think I mentioned this to you before.

LETTER 331. TO ASA GRAY. Down, October 12th {1856}.

I received yesterday your most kind letter of the 23rd and your "Statistics," and two days previously another copy. I thank you cordially for them. Botanists write, of course, for botanists; but, as far as the opinion of an "outsider" goes, I think your paper admirable. I have read carefully a good many papers and works on geographical distribution, and I know of only one essay (viz. Hooker's "New Zealand") that makes any approach to the clearness with which your paper makes a non-botanist appreciate the character of the flora of a country. It is wonderfully condensed (what labour it must have required!). You ask whether such details are worth giving: in my opinion, there is literally not one word too much.

I received your very kind letter from the 23rd and your "Statistics" yesterday, along with another copy two days ago. Thank you so much for them. Botanists write primarily for other botanists, but from an "outsider's" perspective, I think your paper is excellent. I've read many papers and works on geographical distribution, and the only one that comes close to the clarity of your paper is Hooker's "New Zealand." It really helps a non-botanist understand the character of a country's flora. It's impressively condensed (I can't imagine how much work that took!). You asked if such details are worth including: in my opinion, there isn't a single word too many.

I thank you sincerely for the information about "social" and "varying plants," and likewise for giving me some idea about the proportion (i.e. 1/4th) of European plants which you think do not range to the extreme North. This proportion is very much greater than I had anticipated, from what I picked up in conversation, etc.

I sincerely thank you for the information about "social" and "varied plants," and also for providing me with an idea of the proportion (i.e. 1/4th) of European plants that you believe do not extend to the far North. This proportion is much higher than I had expected based on what I’ve gathered from conversations, etc.

To return to your "Statistics." I daresay you will give how many genera (and orders) your 260 introduced plants belong to. I see they include 113 genera non-indigenous. As you have probably a list of the introduced plants, would it be asking too great a favour to send me, per Hooker or otherwise, just the total number of genera and orders to which the introduced plants belong. I am much interested in this, and have found De Candolle's remarks on this subject very instructive.

To get back to your "Statistics," I would bet you can tell me how many genera (and orders) your 260 introduced plants fall into. I see they include 113 non-native genera. Since you probably have a list of the introduced plants, would it be too much to ask if you could send me, via Hooker or any other way, just the total number of genera and orders that these introduced plants belong to? I'm really interested in this and found De Candolle's comments on this topic very enlightening.

Nothing has surprised me more than the greater generic and specific affinity with East Asia than with West America. Can you tell me (and I will promise to inflict no other question) whether climate explains this greater affinity? or is it one of the many utterly inexplicable problems in botanical geography? Is East Asia nearly as well known as West America? so that does the state of knowledge allow a pretty fair comparison? I presume it would be impossible, but I think it would make in one point your tables of generic ranges more clear (admirably clear as they seem to me) if you could show, even roughly, what proportion of the genera in common to Europe (i.e. nearly half) are very general or mundane rangers. As your results now stand, at the first glance the affinity seems so very strong to Europe, owing, as I presume, to nearly half of the genera including very many genera common to the world or large portions of it. Europe is thus unfairly exalted. Is this not so? If we had the number of genera strictly, or nearly strictly European, one could compare better with Asia and Southern America, etc. But I dare say this is a Utopian wish, owing to difficulty of saying what genera to call mundane; nor have I my ideas at all clear on the subject, and I have expressed them even less clearly than I have them.

Nothing has surprised me more than the stronger similarity in plant species between East Asia and West America. Can you tell me (and I promise not to ask anything else) whether climate accounts for this stronger similarity? Or is it just one of those totally baffling mysteries in botanical geography? Is East Asia well-known enough, like West America, to make a fair comparison? I assume it would be impossible, but I think it would clarify one aspect of your tables of generic ranges (which are already admirably clear) if you could show, even roughly, what proportion of the genera shared with Europe (about half) are very common or widespread. As your results stand now, at first glance, the similarity to Europe seems very strong, likely because nearly half of the genera include many that are common globally or across large regions. This puts Europe in an unfairly elevated position. Isn’t that right? If we had a definitive count of genera that are strictly or nearly strictly European, it would be easier to compare them with Asia and South America, etc. But I imagine this is a utopian wish, due to the challenge of defining which genera to consider common; my thoughts on the subject aren’t very clear either, and I’ve expressed them even less clearly than I understand them.

I am so very glad that you intend to work out the north range of the 321 European species; for it seems to me the by far most important element in their distribution.

I’m really glad that you plan to figure out the northern range of the 321 European species because it seems to me that it’s by far the most important factor in their distribution.

And I am equally glad that you intend to work out range of species in regard to size of genera—i.e. number of species in genus. I have been attempting to do this in a very few cases, but it is folly for any one but a botanist to attempt it. I must think that De Candolle has fallen into error in attempting to do this for orders instead of for genera—for reasons with which I will not trouble you.

And I'm just as happy that you're planning to figure out the range of species based on the size of genera—meaning the number of species in each genus. I've tried to do this in a few instances, but it's pointless for anyone who isn't a botanist to try. I believe De Candolle made a mistake by trying to do this for orders instead of for genera—there are reasons for this that I'm not going to get into.

LETTER 332. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(332/1. The "verdict" referred to in the following letter was Sir J.D. Hooker's opinion on Darwin's MS. on geographical distribution. The first paragraph has been already published in "Life and Letters," II., page 86.)

(332/1. The "verdict" mentioned in the letter below was Sir J.D. Hooker's opinion on Darwin's manuscript about geographical distribution. The first paragraph has already been published in "Life and Letters," II., page 86.)

Down, November 4th {1856}.

Down, November 4, 1856.

I thank you more cordially than you will think probable for your note. Your verdict has been a great relief. On my honour I had no idea whether or not you would say it was (and I knew you would say it very kindly) so bad, that you would have begged me to have burnt the whole. To my own mind my MS. relieved me of some few difficulties, and the difficulties seemed to me pretty fairly stated; but I had become so bewildered with conflicting facts—evidence, reasoning and opinions—that I felt to myself that I had lost all judgment. Your general verdict is incomparably more favourable than I had anticipated.

I sincerely thank you more than you might expect for your note. Your feedback has been a huge relief. Honestly, I wasn’t sure if you would say it was (and I knew you would say it very kindly) so bad that you would have asked me to burn the whole thing. To me, my manuscript helped me work through some challenges, and I thought the issues were stated pretty clearly; but I had become so confused with all the conflicting facts—evidence, reasoning, and opinions—that I felt I had completely lost my judgment. Your overall feedback is far more positive than I anticipated.

Very many thanks for your invitation. I had made up my mind, on my poor wife's account, not to come up to next Phil. Club; but I am so much tempted by your invitation, and my poor dear wife is so good-natured about it, that I think I shall not resist—i.e., if she does not get worse. I would come to dinner at about same time as before, if that would suit you, and I do not hear to the contrary; and would go away by the early train—i.e., about 9 o'clock. I find my present work tries me a good deal, and sets my heart palpitating, so I must be careful. But I should so much like to see Henslow, and likewise meet Lindley if the fates will permit. You will see whether there will be time for any criticism in detail on my MS. before dinner: not that I am in the least hurry, for it will be months before I come again to Geographical Distribution; only I am afraid of your forgetting any remarks.

Thank you so much for your invitation. I had decided, for the sake of my poor wife, not to attend the next Phil. Club; but your invitation is so tempting, and my dear wife is so understanding about it, that I think I won’t be able to resist—unless she gets worse, of course. I would like to come to dinner around the same time as before, if that works for you, and I won't hear otherwise; I'll leave on the early train—around 9 o'clock. I find my current work is quite taxing and makes my heart race, so I need to be cautious. But I’d really like to see Henslow and meet Lindley if fate allows. You’ll see if there’s time for any detailed feedback on my manuscript before dinner; I’m not in a rush since it will be months before I get back to Geographical Distribution; I'm just worried you might forget any comments.

I do not know whether my very trifling observations on means of distribution are worth your reading, but it amuses me to tell them.

I don't know if my small observations about distribution methods are worth your time, but I enjoy sharing them.

The seeds which the eagle had in {its} stomach for eighteen hours looked so fresh that I would have bet five to one that they would all have grown; but some kinds were ALL killed, and two oats, one canary-seed, one clover, and one beet alone came up! Now I should have not cared swearing that the beet would not have been killed, and I should have fully expected that the clover would have been. These seeds, however, were kept for three days in moist pellets, damp with gastric juice, after being ejected, which would have helped to have injured them.

The seeds that the eagle had in its stomach for eighteen hours looked so fresh that I would have bet five to one they'd all grow. But some types were completely killed, and only two oats, one canary seed, one clover, and one beet actually sprouted! I would have confidently sworn that the beet wouldn’t have been harmed, and I would have fully expected that the clover would have. However, these seeds were kept for three days in wet pellets, soaked with gastric juice, after being ejected, which likely damaged them.

Lately I have been looking, during a few walks, at excrement of small birds. I have found six kinds of seeds, which is more than I expected. Lastly, I have had a partridge with twenty-two grains of dry earth on one foot, and to my surprise a pebble as big as a tare seed; and I now understand how this is possible, for the bird scratches itself, {and the} little plumous feathers make a sort of very tenacious plaister. Think of the millions of migratory quails (332/2. See "Origin," Edition I., page 363, where the millions of migrating quails occur again.), and it would be strange if some plants have not been transported across good arms of the sea.

Lately, during a few walks, I've been observing the droppings of small birds. I've discovered six types of seeds, which is more than I anticipated. Finally, I found a partridge with twenty-two grains of dry dirt on one foot, and to my surprise, a pebble the size of a tare seed; now I understand how this happens, as the bird scratches itself, and the tiny fluffy feathers create a sticky kind of plaster. Considering the millions of migratory quails (332/2. See "Origin," Edition I., page 363, where the millions of migrating quails occur again.), it wouldn't be surprising if some plants have been carried across wide stretches of sea.

Talking of this, I have just read your curious Raoul Island paper. (332/3. "Linn. Soc. Journal." I., 1857.) This looks more like a case of continuous land, or perhaps of several intervening, now lost, islands than any (according to my heterodox notions) I have yet seen. The concordance of the vegetation seems so complete with New Zealand, and with that land alone.

Talking about this, I just read your interesting Raoul Island paper. (332/3. "Linn. Soc. Journal." I., 1857.) This seems more like a case of continuous land, or maybe several intervening, now-lost islands than anything I’ve seen before (based on my unconventional ideas). The agreement of the vegetation seems so perfect with New Zealand, and only with that land.

I have read Salter's paper and can hardly stomach it. I wonder whether the lighters were ever used to carry grain and hay to ships. (332/4. Salter, "Linn. Soc. Journal," I., 1857, page 140, "On the Vitality of Seeds after prolonged Immersion in the Sea." It appears that in 1843 the mud was scraped from the bottom of the channels in Poole Harbour, and carried to shore in barges. On this mud a vegetation differing from that of the surrounding shore sprang up.)

I’ve read Salter’s paper and can barely stand it. I’m curious if the lighters were ever used to transport grain and hay to ships. (332/4. Salter, "Linn. Soc. Journal," I., 1857, page 140, "On the Vitality of Seeds after prolonged Immersion in the Sea." It seems that in 1843, the mud was scraped from the bottom of the channels in Poole Harbour and transported to the shore in barges. On this mud, a type of vegetation different from the surrounding shore began to grow.)

Adios, my dear Hooker. I thank you most honestly for your assistance—assistance, by the way, now spread over some dozen years.

Adios, my dear Hooker. I sincerely thank you for your help—help that, by the way, has spanned over a dozen years.

P.S.—Wednesday. I see from my wife's expression that she does not really much like my going, and therefore I must give up, of course, this pleasure.

P.S.—Wednesday. I can tell from my wife's expression that she's not really fond of me going, so I guess I'll have to give up this pleasure.

If you should have anything to discuss about my MS., I see that I could get to you by about 12, and then could return by the 2.19 o'clock train, and be home by 5.30 o'clock, and thus I should get two hours' talk. But it would be a considerable exertion for me, and I would not undertake it for mere pleasure's sake, but would very gladly for my book's sake.

If you have anything to discuss about my manuscript, I could get to you by around noon and then catch the 2:19 train back, getting home by 5:30. That would give us two hours to talk. However, it would be quite an effort for me, and I wouldn't do it just for fun, but I would be more than happy to do it for my book.

LETTER 333. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. November 9th, 1856.

LETTER 333. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. November 9, 1856.

I have finished the reading of your MS., and have been very much delighted and instructed. Your case is a most strong one, and gives me a much higher idea of change than I had previously entertained; and though, as you know, never very stubborn about unalterability of specific type, I never felt so shaky about species before.

I’ve finished reading your manuscript and was really impressed and educated by it. Your argument is very compelling and has given me a much greater appreciation for change than I had before. Even though, as you know, I’ve never been particularly rigid about the unchangeability of specific types, I’ve never felt so uncertain about species as I do now.

The first half you will be able to put more clearly when you polish up. I have in several cases made pencil alterations in details as to words, etc., to enable myself to follow better,—some of it is rather stiff reading. I have a page or two of notes for discussion, many of which were answered, as I got further on with the MS., more or less fully. Your doctrine of the cooling of the Tropics is a startling one, when carried to the length of supporting plants of cold temperate regions; and I must confess that, much as I should like it, I can hardly stomach keeping the tropical genera alive in so very cool a greenhouse {pencil note by C.D., "Not so very cool, but northern ones could range further south if not opposed"}. Still I must confess that all your arguments pro may be much stronger put than you have. I am more reconciled to iceberg transport than I was, the more especially as I will give you any length of time to keep vitality in ice, and more than that, will let you transport roots that way also.

You’ll be able to clarify the first half once you refine it. I’ve made some pencil changes regarding wording and details to help me understand it better—some of it is a bit tough to read. I have a page or two of notes for discussion, many of which were addressed as I progressed through the manuscript, more or less completely. Your theory about the cooling of the Tropics is surprising, especially when it suggests supporting plants from cooler temperate regions; I must admit that, as much as I’d like it to be true, I can hardly handle keeping tropical plants alive in such a cool greenhouse {pencil note by C.D., "Not so very cool, but northern ones could range further south if not opposed"}. Still, I have to say that your arguments in favor are likely much stronger than you’ve presented them. I’m more accepting of iceberg transport than I was before, especially since I’ll give you any amount of time to maintain vitality in ice, and furthermore, I’ll allow you to transport roots that way as well.

(333/1. The above letter was pinned to the following note by Mr. Darwin.)

(333/1. The letter above was attached to the note below by Mr. Darwin.)

In answer to this show from similarity of American, and European and Alpine-Arctic plants, that they have travelled enormously without any change.

In response to this display of similarities between American, European, and Alpine-Arctic plants, it shows that they have traveled extensively without any changes.

As sub-arctic, temperate and tropical are all slowly marching toward the equator, the tropical will be first checked and distressed, similarly (333/2. Almost illegible.) the temperate will invade...; after the temperate can {not} advance or do not wish to advance further the arctics will be checked and will invade. The temperates will have been far longer in Tropics than sub-arctics. The sub-arctics will first have to cross temperate {zone} and then Tropics. They would penetrate among strangers, just like the many naturalised plants brought by man, from some unknown advantage. But more, for nearly all have chance of doing so.

As the sub-arctic, temperate, and tropical regions gradually move toward the equator, the tropical areas will be affected first and go through difficulties. Similarly, the temperate zones will invade...; once the temperate regions can no longer advance or choose not to move forward, the arctic areas will be checked and will also invade. The temperate regions will have spent much more time in the tropics than the sub-arctics will have. The sub-arctic regions will need to first cross through the temperate zone and then into the tropics. They would be entering a new area filled with strangers, much like the various naturalized plants brought by humans, benefiting from some unknown advantage. Moreover, almost all have a chance to do so.

(333/3. The point of view is more clearly given in the following letters.)

(333/3. The perspective is outlined more clearly in the following letters.)

LETTER 334. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 15th {1856}.

I shall not consider all your notes on my MS. for some weeks, till I have done with crossing; but I have not been able to stop myself meditating on your powerful objection to the mundane cold period (334/1. See Letter 49.), viz. that MANY-fold more of the warm-temperate species ought to have crossed the Tropics than of the sub-arctic forms. I really think that to those who deny the modification of species this would absolutely disprove my theory. But according to the notions which I am testing—viz. that species do become changed, and that time is a most important element (which I think I shall be able to show very clearly in this case)—in such change, I think, the result would be as follows. Some of the warm-temperate forms would penetrate the Tropics long before the sub-arctic, and some might get across the equator long before the sub-arctic forms could do so (i.e. always supposing that the cold came on slowly), and therefore these must have been exposed to new associates and new conditions much longer than the sub-arctic. Hence I should infer that we ought to have in the warm-temperate S. hemisphere more representative or modified forms, and fewer identical species than in comparing the colder regions of the N. and S. I have expressed this very obscurely, but you will understand, I think, what I mean. It is a parallel case (but with a greater difference) to the species of the mountains of S. Europe compared with the arctic plants, the S. European alpine species having been isolated for a longer period than on the arctic islands. Whether there are many tolerably close species in the warm-temperate lands of the S. and N. I know not; as in La Plata, Cape of Good Hope, and S. Australia compared to the North, I know not. I presume it would be very difficult to test this, but perhaps you will keep it a little before your mind, for your argument strikes me as by far the most serious difficulty which has occurred to me. All your criticisms and approvals are in simple truth invaluable to me. I fancy I am right in speaking in this note of the species in common to N. and S. as being rather sub-arctic than arctic.

I won't look at all your comments on my manuscript for a few weeks until I finish my work on crossing; however, I can't help but think about your strong objection to the cold period (334/1. See Letter 49.), which is that there should have been way more warm-temperate species crossing the Tropics than sub-arctic forms. I truly believe that for those who deny species modification, this would completely contradict my theory. But based on the ideas I'm testing—specifically, that species do change and that time is a crucial factor (which I think I can demonstrate quite clearly)—I believe the outcome would be as follows. Some of the warm-temperate forms would move into the Tropics much earlier than the sub-arctic ones, and some might even cross the equator well before the sub-arctic forms could (assuming the cold sets in gradually). Therefore, these forms would have had exposure to new associates and conditions for a longer time than the sub-arctic species. Thus, I would conclude that in the warm-temperate Southern Hemisphere, we should find more representative or modified forms and fewer identical species compared to the colder regions of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. I've stated this somewhat unclearly, but I think you’ll get what I mean. It's a similar situation (though with more significant differences) to the plant species in the mountains of Southern Europe compared to arctic plants, with the Southern European alpine species having been isolated for a longer period than those on arctic islands. I don’t know if there are many closely related species in the warm-temperate regions of the Southern and Northern Hemispheres; for example, in La Plata, the Cape of Good Hope, and Southern Australia compared to the North, I'm unsure. I assume it would be quite challenging to test this, but maybe you can keep it in mind, as your argument seems to be the most serious challenge I've encountered. All your feedback, both criticism and support, is truly invaluable to me. I believe I'm correct in referring in this note to the species common to the North and South as being more sub-arctic than arctic.

This letter does not require any answer. I have written it to ease myself, and to get you just to bear your argument, under the modification point of view, in mind. I have had this morning a most cruel stab in the side on my notion of the distribution of mammals in relation to soundings.

This letter doesn’t need a response. I’ve written it to clear my mind and to ask you to keep your argument in mind from a different perspective. This morning, I got a really tough blow to my idea about how mammals are distributed in relation to soundings.

LETTER 335. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, Sunday {November 1856}.

I write only to say that I entirely appreciate your answer to my objection on the score of the comparative rareness of Northern warm-temperate forms in the Southern hemisphere. You certainly have wriggled out of it by getting them more time to change, but as you must admit that the distance traversed is not so great as the arctics have to travel, and the extremes of modifying cause not so great as the arctics undergo, the result should be considerably modified thereby. Thus: the sub-arctics have (1) to travel twice as far, (2) taking twice the time, (3) undergoing many more disturbing influences.

I’m just writing to say that I completely appreciate your response to my objection regarding the relative scarcity of Northern warm-temperate species in the Southern Hemisphere. You definitely managed to dodge the issue by allowing them more time to evolve, but you have to admit that the distance they need to cover isn’t as great as what the Arctic species have to travel, and the extremes of change they experience aren’t as intense as what the Arctic species go through. Therefore, the outcome should be significantly different because the sub-Arctic species have (1) to travel twice as far, (2) taking twice as long, and (3) experiencing many more disruptive factors.

All this you have to meet by giving the North temperate forms simply more time. I think this will hardly hold water.

All you need to do is give the Northern temperate forms a bit more time. I don’t think that’s going to work.

LETTER 336. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 18th {1856}.

Many thanks for your note received this morning; and now for another "wriggle." According to my notions, the sub-arctic species would advance in a body, advancing so as to keep climate nearly the same; and as long as they did this I do not believe there would be any tendency to change, but only when the few got amongst foreign associates. When the tropical species retreated as far as they could to the equator they would halt, and then the confusion would spread back in the line of march from the far north, and the strongest would struggle forward, etc., etc. (But I am getting quite poetical in my wriggles). In short, I THINK the warm-temperates would be exposed very much longer to those causes which I believe are alone efficient in producing change than the sub-arctic; but I must think more over this, and have a good wriggle. I cannot quite agree with your proposition that because the sub-arctic have to travel twice as far they would be more liable to change. Look at the two journeys which the arctics have had from N. to S. and S. to N., with no change, as may be inferred, if my doctrine is correct, from similarity of arctic species in America and Europe and in the Alps. But I will not weary you; but I really and truly think your last objection is not so strong as it looks at first. You never make an objection without doing me much good. Hurrah! a seed has just germinated after 21 1/2 hours in owl's stomach. This, according to ornithologists' calculation, would carry it God knows how many miles; but I think an owl really might go in storm in this time 400 or 500 miles. Adios.

Thanks for your note I got this morning; now for another "wriggle." I think the sub-arctic species would move together to keep the climate similar; as long as they did this, I don’t believe they would change much, only when a few mixed with unfamiliar species. When the tropical species retreated as far as they could to the equator, they would stop, and then the confusion would spread back along the route from the far north, and the strongest would push forward, and so on. (But I’m getting quite poetic in my wriggles). In short, I think the warm-temperate species would be exposed to the factors that create change for a much longer time than the sub-arctic ones; but I need to think this over more and have a good wriggle. I can't fully agree with your point that just because the sub-arctic species have to travel twice as far, they would be more likely to change. Look at the trips that Arctic species have made north to south and south to north, with no change, as can be inferred, if my theory is correct, from the similarity of Arctic species in America and Europe and in the Alps. But I won't tire you; I genuinely think your last objection isn’t as strong as it seems at first. You never raise an objection without helping me a lot. Hurrah! A seed just germinated after 21.5 hours in an owl's stomach. According to ornithologists, this could carry it who knows how many miles; but I think an owl could really manage to go 400 or 500 miles in a storm during that time. Goodbye.

Owls and hawks have often been seen in mid-Atlantic.

Owls and hawks have frequently been spotted in the mid-Atlantic.

(336/1. An interesting letter, dated November 23rd, 1856, occurs in the "Life and Letters," II., page 86, which forms part of this discussion. On page 87 the following passage occurs: "I shall have to discuss and think more about your difficulty of the temperate and sub-arctic forms in the S. hemisphere than I have yet done. But I am inclined to think that I am right (if my general principles are right), that there would be little tendency to the formation of a new species during the period of migration, whether shorter or longer, though considerable variability may have supervened.)

(336/1. An interesting letter, dated November 23rd, 1856, appears in the "Life and Letters," II., page 86, which is part of this discussion. On page 87, the following passage is included: "I need to think and discuss your issue with the temperate and sub-arctic forms in the Southern Hemisphere more than I have so far. However, I believe that I’m correct (if my general principles hold true), that there would be little tendency for a new species to form during the migration period, whether it’s brief or extended, although significant variability might arise.)

LETTER 337. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 10th {1856}.

It is a most tiresome drawback to my satisfaction in writing that, though I leave out a good deal and try to condense, every chapter runs to such an inordinate length. My present chapter on the causes of fertility and sterility and on natural crossing has actually run out to 100 pages MS., and yet I do not think I have put in anything superfluous...

It’s really frustrating that even though I leave out a lot and try to keep things concise, every chapter ends up being excessively long. My current chapter on the causes of fertility and sterility, as well as natural crossing, has grown to 100 pages of manuscript, and I still don’t think I’ve included anything unnecessary...

I have for the last fifteen months been tormented and haunted by land-mollusca, which occur on every oceanic island; and I thought that the double creationists or continental extensionists had here a complete victory. The few eggs which I have tried both sink and are killed. No one doubts that salt water would be eminently destructive to them; and I was really in despair, when I thought I would try them when torpid; and this day I have taken a lot out of the sea-water, after exactly seven days' immersion. (337/1. This method of dispersal is not given in the "Origin"; it seems, therefore, probable that further experiments upset the conclusion drawn in 1856. This would account for the satisfaction expressed in the following year at the discovery of another method, on which Darwin wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker: "The distribution of fresh-water molluscs has been a horrid incubus to me, but I think I know my way now. When first hatched they are very active, and I have had thirty or forty crawl on a dead duck's foot; and they cannot be jerked off, and will live fifteen or even twenty-four hours out of water" ("Life and Letters," II., page 93). The published account of these experiments is in the "Origin," Edition I., page 385.) Some sink and some swim; and in both cases I have had (as yet) one come to life again, which has quite astonished and delighted me. I feel as if a thousand-pound weight was taken off my back. Adios, my dear, kind friend.

I have been tormented and haunted for the last fifteen months by land snails that appear on every oceanic island, and I thought that the double creationists or continental extensionists had scored a complete victory here. The few eggs I tried both sank and died. No one doubts that salt water would be highly destructive to them; I was truly in despair until I decided to try them while they were dormant. Today, I took a batch out of the seawater after exactly seven days of immersion. (337/1. This method of dispersal isn’t mentioned in the "Origin"; it seems likely that further experiments altered the conclusion drawn in 1856. This could explain the satisfaction expressed the following year when another method was discovered, which Darwin wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker about: "The distribution of fresh-water molluscs has been a horrid burden for me, but I think I finally understand it. When they’re first hatched, they’re very active, and I’ve had thirty or forty crawl on a dead duck’s foot; they can’t be shaken off and will live for fifteen or even twenty-four hours out of water" ("Life and Letters," II., page 93). The published account of these experiments is in the "Origin," Edition I., page 385.) Some sink and some swim; so far, I’ve had one come back to life, which has completely astonished and delighted me. I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders. Goodbye, my dear, kind friend.

I must tell you another of my profound experiments! {Frank} said to me: "Why should not a bird be killed (by hawk, lightning, apoplexy, hail, etc.) with seed in its crop, and it would swim?" No sooner said than done: a pigeon has floated for thirty days in salt water with seeds in its crop, and they have grown splendidly; and to my great surprise even tares (Leguminosae, so generally killed by sea-water), which the bird had naturally eaten, have grown well. You will say gulls and dog-fish, etc., would eat up the carcase, and so they would 999 times out of a thousand, but one might escape: I have seen dead land-birds in sea-drift.

I have to share another one of my fascinating experiments! {Frank} said to me: "Why can't a bird be killed (by a hawk, lightning, a stroke, hail, etc.) with seeds in its crop, and still swim?" No sooner said than done: a pigeon floated for thirty days in salt water with seeds in its crop, and they grew beautifully; and to my surprise, even tares (Leguminosae, which usually die in seawater) that the bird had naturally eaten thrived. You might say that gulls and dogfish would eat the carcass, and they would 999 times out of a thousand, but one might escape: I’ve seen dead land birds washed up in the ocean.

LETTER 338. ASA GRAY TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(338/1. In reply to Darwin's letter given in "Life and Letters," II., page 88.)

(338/1. In response to Darwin's letter found in "Life and Letters," II., page 88.)

Cambridge, Mass., February 16th, 1857.

Cambridge, MA, February 16, 1857.

I meant to have replied to your interesting letter of January 1st long before this time, and also that of November 24th, which I doubt if I have ever acknowledged. But after getting my school-book, Lessons in Botany, off my hands—it taking up time far beyond what its size would seem to warrant—I had to fall hard at work upon a collection of small size from Japan—mostly N. Japan, which I am only just done with. As I expected, the number of species common to N. America is considerably increased in this collection, as also the number of closely representative species in the two, and a pretty considerable number of European species too. I have packed off my MSS. (though I hardly know what will become of it), or I would refer you to some illustrations. The greater part of the identical species (of Japan and N. America) are of those extending to or belonging to N.W. coast of America, but there are several peculiar to Japan and E. U. States: e.g. our Viburnum lantanoides is one of Thunberg's species. De Candolle's remarkable case of Phryma, which he so dwells upon, turns out, as Dr. Hooker said it would, to be only one out of a great many cases of the same sort. (Hooker brought Monotropa uniflora, you know, from the Himalayas; and now, by the way, I have it from almost as far south, i.e., from St. Fee, New Granada)...

I meant to reply to your interesting letter from January 1st much earlier, as well as the one from November 24th, which I’m not sure if I ever acknowledged. After finishing my school book, Lessons in Botany, which took way more time than expected, I had to dive into a collection from Japan, mostly from Northern Japan, which I've just completed. As I expected, there are a lot more species common to North America in this collection, along with many closely related species and quite a few European ones as well. I've sent off my manuscripts (though I have no idea what will happen to them), or I would have pointed you to some illustrations. Most of the identical species (from Japan and North America) are those found on or native to the Northwest coast of America, but there are several that are unique to Japan and the Eastern U.S.; for example, our Viburnum lantanoides is one of Thunberg's species. De Candolle's notable case of Phryma, which he emphasizes, turns out, as Dr. Hooker predicted, to be just one of many similar cases. (You know Hooker brought Monotropa uniflora from the Himalayas; and by the way, I've found it from almost as far south, that is, from St. Fee, New Granada)...

Well, I never meant to draw any conclusions at all, and am very sorry that the only one I was beguiled into should "rile" (338/2. "One of your conclusions makes me groan, viz., that the line of connection of the strictly alpine plants is through Greenland. I should extremely like to see your reasons published in detail, for it 'riles' me (this is a proper expression, is it not?) dreadfully" (Darwin to Gray, January 1st, 1857, "Life and Letters," II., page 89).) you, as you say it does,—that on page 73 of my second article: for if it troubles you it is not likely to be sound. Of course I had no idea of laying any great stress upon the fact (at first view so unexpected to me) that one-third of our alpine species common to Europe do not reach the Arctic circle; but the remark which I put down was an off-hand inference from what you geologists seem to have settled—viz., that the northern regions must have been a deal cooler than they are now—the northern limit of vegetation therefore much lower than now—about the epoch when it would seem probable that the existing species of our plants were created. At any rate, during the Glacial period there could have been no phaenogamous plants on our continent anywhere near the polar regions; and it seems a good rule to look in the first place for the cause or reason of what now is, in that which immediately preceded. I don't see that Greenland could help us much, but if there was any interchange of species between N. America and N. Europe in those times, was not the communication more likely to be in lower latitudes than over the pole?

Well, I never intended to draw any conclusions at all, and I’m very sorry that the only one I got caught up in should "rile" you, as you say it does, on page 73 of my second article. If it bothers you, it’s unlikely to be sound. Of course, I didn’t mean to emphasize the fact (which was quite surprising to me at first) that a third of our alpine species common to Europe don’t reach the Arctic Circle. However, my remark was just a casual inference from what you geologists seem to have established—that the northern regions were much cooler than they are now, which means the northern limit of vegetation was much lower than it is today, around the time when it seems likely that our current plant species were created. At any rate, during the Glacial period, there couldn’t have been any flowering plants anywhere near the polar regions on our continent, and it seems sensible to first look for the cause or reason for what we see now in what immediately came before. I don’t think Greenland would help us much, but if there was any exchange of species between North America and Northern Europe back then, wouldn’t it be more likely that the connection happened in lower latitudes rather than over the pole?

If, however, you say—as you may have very good reasons for saying—that the existing species got their present diffusion before the Glacial epoch, I should have no answer. I suppose you must needs assume very great antiquity for species of plants in order to account for their present dispersion, so long as we cling—as one cannot but do—to the idea of the single birthplace of species.

If, however, you say—as you may have very good reasons for saying—that the current species spread before the Ice Age, I wouldn't have a response. I guess you have to assume that plant species are really ancient to explain their current distribution, especially since we tend to hold on to the idea of a single place where species originated.

I am curious to see whether, as you suggest, there would be found a harmony or close similarity between the geographical range in this country of the species common to Europe and those strictly representative or strictly congeneric with European species. If I get a little time I will look up the facts: though, as Dr. Hooker rightly tells me, I have no business to be running after side game of any sort, while there is so much I have to do—much more than I shall ever do probably—to finish undertakings I have long ago begun.

I’m interested to see if, as you mentioned, there’s a connection or similarity between the geographical distribution of species in this country that are common to Europe and those that are strictly representative or closely related to European species. If I find some time, I’ll check the facts: although, as Dr. Hooker rightly pointed out, I shouldn’t be pursuing side projects at all when there's so much I need to do—probably way more than I’ll ever complete—to finish the projects I started a long time ago.

...As to your P.S. If you have time to send me a longer list of your protean genera, I will say if they seem to be protean here. Of those you mention:—

...Regarding your P.S. If you have time to send me a longer list of your diverse genera, I'll let you know if they seem to be diverse here. Of those you mentioned:—

Salix, I really know nothing about.

Salix, I truly don’t know anything about.

Rubus, the N. American species, with one exception, are very clearly marked indeed.

Rubus, the North American species, are all very clearly marked except for one.

Mentha, we have only one wild species; that has two pretty well-marked forms, which have been taken for species; one smooth, the other hairy.

Mentha, we have just one wild species, which has two distinct forms that have been considered separate species: one smooth and the other hairy.

Saxifraga, gives no trouble here.

Saxifraga doesn't cause any issues here.

Myosotis, only one or two species here, and those very well marked.

Myosotis, just one or two species here, and those are very distinct.

Hieracium, few species, but pretty well marked.

Hieracium, a few species, but quite distinct.

Rosa, putting down a set of nominal species, leaves us four; two of them polymorphous, but easy to distinguish...

Rosa, listing a set of named species, leaves us with four; two of them are polymorphic, but easy to tell apart...

LETTER 339. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, {1857?}

One must judge by one's own light, however imperfect, and as I have found no other book (339/1. A. De Candolle's "Geographie Botanique," 1855.) so useful to me, I am bound to feel grateful: no doubt it is in main part owing to the concentrated light of the noble art of compilation. (339/2. See Letter 49.) I was aware that he was not the first who had insisted on range of Monocots. (Was not R. Brown {with} Flinders?) (339/3. M. Flinders' "Voyage to Terra Australis in 1801-3, in H.M.S. 'Investigator'"; with "Botanical Appendix," by Robert Brown, London, 1814.), and I fancy I only used expression "strongly insisted on,"—but it is quite unimportant.

One has to judge by their own understanding, even if it’s not perfect, and since I've found no other book (339/1. A. De Candolle's "Geographie Botanique," 1855.) as helpful to me, I feel grateful. It’s mostly because of the focused insight of the impressive art of compilation. (339/2. See Letter 49.) I knew he wasn’t the first to emphasize the range of Monocots. (Wasn’t R. Brown {with} Flinders?) (339/3. M. Flinders' "Voyage to Terra Australis in 1801-3, in H.M.S. 'Investigator'"; with "Botanical Appendix," by Robert Brown, London, 1814.), and I think I only used the phrase "strongly insisted on,"—but that’s not really important.

If you and I had time to waste, I should like to go over his {De Candolle's} book and point out the several subjects in which I fancy he is original. His remarks on the relations of naturalised plants will be very useful to me; on the ranges of large families seemed to me good, though I believe he has made a great blunder in taking families instead of smaller groups, as I have been delighted to find in A. Gray's last paper. But it is no use going on.

If you and I had some time to spare, I’d love to go through De Candolle's book and highlight the various topics where I think he's come up with something new. His insights on the relationships of naturalized plants will be really helpful for me; his observations on the ranges of large families seemed solid, although I think he made a big mistake by focusing on families instead of smaller groups, as I've happily discovered in A. Gray's recent paper. But there's no point in continuing.

I do so wish I could understand clearly why you do not at all believe in accidental means of dispersion of plants. The strongest argument which I can remember at this instant is A. de C., that very widely ranging plants are found as commonly on islands as over continents. It is really provoking to me that the immense contrast in proportion of plants in New Zealand and Australia seems to me a strong argument for non-continuous land; and this does not seem to weigh in the least with you. I wish I could put myself in your frame of mind. In Madeira I find in Wollaston's books a parallel case with your New Zealand case—viz., the striking absence of whole genera and orders now common in Europe, and (as I have just been hunting out) common in Europe in Miocene periods. Of course I can offer no explanation why this or that group is absent; but if the means of introduction have been accidental, then one might expect odd proportions and absences. When we meet, do try and make me see more clearly than I do, your reasons.

I really wish I could understand why you completely dismiss the idea of accidental ways plants get dispersed. The strongest argument I can think of right now is A. de C.'s point that widely ranging plants are just as often found on islands as they are on continents. It really frustrates me that the huge difference in the variety of plants in New Zealand and Australia seems like strong evidence for non-continuous land to me, yet it doesn't seem to matter to you at all. I wish I could see things from your perspective. In Madeira, I found a similar case in Wollaston's books related to your New Zealand example—namely, the notable absence of entire genera and orders that are now common in Europe and, as I've just looked up, were common in Europe during the Miocene period. Of course, I can't explain why this or that group is missing, but if the way they got there was accidental, then weird proportions and absences would make sense. When we meet, please help me understand your reasons better than I do now.

LETTER 340. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 14th {1858}.

I am heartily glad to hear that my Lyellian notes have been of the slightest use to you. (340/1. The Copley Medal was given to Sir Charles Lyell in 1858. Mr. Darwin supplied Sir J.D. Hooker, who was on the Council of the Royal Society, with notes for the reasons for the award. See Letter 69.) I do not think the view is exaggerated...

I’m really happy to hear that my notes on Lyell have been even a little helpful to you. (340/1. The Copley Medal was awarded to Sir Charles Lyell in 1858. Mr. Darwin provided Sir J.D. Hooker, who was on the Royal Society Council, with notes explaining the reasons for the award. See Letter 69.) I don’t think the perspective is exaggerated...

Your letter and lists have MOST DEEPLY interested me. First for less important point, about hermaphrodite trees. (340/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 89. In the "Origin," Edition I., page 100, the author quotes Dr. Hooker to the effect that "the rule does not hold in Australia," i.e., that trees are not more generally unisexual than other plants. In the 6th edition, page 79, Darwin adds, "but if most of the Australian trees are dichogamous, the same result would follow as if they bore flowers with separated sexes.") It is enough to knock me down, yet I can hardly think that British N. America and New Zealand should all have been theoretically right by chance. Have you at Kew any Eucalyptus or Australian Mimosa which sets its seeds? if so, would it be very troublesome to observe when pollen is mature, and whether pollen-tubes enter stigma readily immediately that pollen is mature or some little time afterwards? though if pollen is not mature for some little time after flower opens, the stigma might be ready first, though according to C.C. Sprengel this is a rarer case. I wrote to Muller for chance of his being able and willing to observe this.

Your letter and lists have really caught my interest. First, on a less important point about hermaphrodite trees. (340/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 89. In the "Origin," Edition I., page 100, the author quotes Dr. Hooker as saying that "the rule does not hold in Australia," meaning that trees are not more commonly unisexual than other plants. In the 6th edition, page 79, Darwin adds, "but if most of the Australian trees are dichogamous, the same result would follow as if they had flowers with separated sexes.") It’s enough to blow my mind, yet I find it hard to believe that British North America and New Zealand could all happen to be theoretically correct by coincidence. Do you happen to have any Eucalyptus or Australian Mimosa at Kew that produces seeds? If so, would it be too much trouble to check when the pollen is mature, and whether pollen-tubes enter the stigma easily as soon as the pollen is mature or if there’s a delay? However, if the pollen isn’t mature for a while after the flower opens, the stigma might be ready first, although, according to C.C. Sprengel, that’s a rarer situation. I wrote to Muller to see if he might be able and willing to look into this.

Your fact of greater number of European plants (N.B.—But do you mean greater percentage?) in Australia than in S. America is astounding and very unpleasant to me; for from N.W. America (where nearly the same flora exists as in Canada?) to T. del Fuego, there is far more continuous high land than from Europe to Tasmania. There must have, I should think, existed some curious barrier on American High-Road: dryness of Peru, excessive damp of Panama, or some other confounded cause, which either prevented immigration or has since destroyed them. You say I may ask questions, and so I have on enclosed paper; but it will of course be a very different thing whether you will think them worth labour of answering.

Your point about there being more European plants (N.B.—Do you mean a higher percentage?) in Australia than in South America is surprising and really bothers me; because from the northwest US (where a similar range of plants exists as in Canada?) to Tierra del Fuego, there’s a lot more continuous high land than there is from Europe to Tasmania. There must have been some unusual barrier on the American high road: the dryness of Peru, the extreme dampness of Panama, or some other maddening reason that either prevented migration or wiped them out later. You mentioned I could ask questions, and I have included some on the paper; but of course, it’ll be a different matter whether you find them worth responding to.

May I keep the lists now returned? otherwise I will have them copied.

May I keep the lists that have been returned? Otherwise, I will get them copied.

You said that you would give me a few cases of Australian forms and identical species going north by Malay Archipelago mountains to Philippines and Japan; but if these are given in your "Introduction" this will suffice for me. (340/3. See Hooker's "Introductory Essay," page l.)

You mentioned that you'd provide me with a few examples of Australian forms and similar species moving north through the mountains of the Malay Archipelago to the Philippines and Japan; however, if these are included in your "Introduction," that would be enough for me. (340/3. See Hooker's "Introductory Essay," page l.)

Your lists seem to me wonderfully interesting.

Your lists seem really interesting to me.

According to my theoretical notions, I am not satisfied with what you say about local plants in S.W. corner of Australia (340/4. Sir Joseph replied in an undated letter: "Thanks for your hint. I shall be very cautious how I mention any connection between the varied flora and poor soil of S.W. Australia...It is not by the way only that the species are so numerous, but that these and the genera are so confoundedly well marked. You have, in short, an incredible number of VERY LOCAL, WELL MARKED genera and species crowded into that corner of Australia." See "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," 1859, page li.), and the seeds not readily germinating: do be cautious on this; consider lapse of time. It does not suit my stomach at all. It is like Wollaston's confined land-snails in Porto Santo, and confined to same spots since a Tertiary period, being due to their slow crawling powers; and yet we know that other shell-snails have stocked a whole country within a very few years with the same breeding powers, and same crawling powers, when the conditions have been favourable to the life of the introduced species. Hypothetically I should rather look at the case as owing to—but as my notions are not very simple or clear, and only hypothetical, they are not worth inflicting on you.

According to my theories, I'm not happy with what you mentioned about local plants in the southwest corner of Australia (340/4. Sir Joseph replied in an undated letter: "Thanks for your hint. I’ll be careful about mentioning any link between the diverse flora and poor soil of S.W. Australia...It’s not just that there are so many species, but that these and the genera are really well defined. You have, in short, an incredible number of VERY LOCAL, WELL MARKED genera and species crammed into that corner of Australia." See "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," 1859, page li.), and the seeds that don't germinate easily: please be careful about this; consider the passage of time. It doesn’t sit well with me at all. It’s like Wollaston’s isolated land-snails in Porto Santo, which have been stuck in the same spots since the Tertiary period due to their slow movement; yet we know that other shell-snails can populate an entire region within just a few years with the same reproductive and movement abilities when the conditions are right for the introduced species. Hypothetically, I would rather think of this case as due to—but since my ideas aren’t very straightforward or clear and are only hypothetical, they’re not worth burdening you with.

I had vowed not to mention my everlasting Abstract (340/5. The "Origin of Species" was abbreviated from the MS. of an unpublished book.) to you again, for I am sure I have bothered you far more than enough about it; but as you allude to its previous publication I may say that I have chapters on Instinct and Hybridism to abstract, which may take a fortnight each; and my materials for Palaeontology, Geographical Distribution and Affinities being less worked up, I daresay each of these will take me three weeks, so that I shall not have done at soonest till April, and then my Abstract will in bulk make a small volume. I never give more than one or two instances, and I pass over briefly all difficulties, and yet I cannot make my Abstract shorter, to be satisfactory, than I am now doing, and yet it will expand to small volume.

I had promised myself not to bring up my never-ending Abstract (340/5. The "Origin of Species" was shortened from the manuscript of an unpublished book.) to you again, since I’m sure I’ve annoyed you enough about it already; but since you mentioned its previous publication, I should let you know that I have chapters on Instinct and Hybridism to summarize, which might take about two weeks each; and since my research on Palaeontology, Geographical Distribution, and Affinities is less developed, I estimate that each of those will take me three weeks. So, I probably won’t finish until April at the earliest, and my Abstract will end up being a small volume. I usually only give one or two examples and briefly touch on all the difficulties, yet I still can’t make my Abstract shorter and satisfactory than it currently is, even though it will end up being quite a bit of material.

LETTER 341. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {November?} 27th {1858}.

What you say about the Cape flora's direct relation to Australia is a great trouble to me. Does not Abyssinia highland, (341/1. In a letter to Darwin, December 21st (?), 1858, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote: "Highlands of Abyssinia will not help you to connect the Cape and Australian temperate floras: they want all the types common to both, and, worse than that, India notably wants them. Proteaceae, Thymeleae, Haemodoraceae, Acacia, Rutaceae, of closely allied genera (and in some cases species), are jammed up in S.W. Australia, and C.B.S. {Cape of Good Hope}: add to this the Epacrideae (which are mere (paragraph symbol) of Ericaceae) and the absence or rarity of Rasaceae, etc., etc., and you have an amount {of} similarity in the floras and dissimilarity to that of Abyssinia and India in the same features that does demand an explanation in any theoretical history of Southern vegetation."), and the mountains on W. coast in some degree connect the extra-tropical floras of Cape and Australia? To my mind the enormous importance of the Glacial period rises daily stronger and stronger. I am very glad to hear about S.E. and S.W. Australia: I suspected after my letter was gone that the case must be as it is. You know of course that nearly the same rule holds with birds and mammals. Several years ago I reviewed in the "Annals of Natural History," (341/2. "Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist." Volume XIX., 1847, pages 53-56, an unsigned review of "A Natural History of the Mammalia," by G.R. Waterhouse, Volume I. The passage referred to is at page 55: "The fact of South Australia possessing only few peculiar species, it having been apparently colonised from the eastern and western coasts, is very interesting; for we believe that Mr. Robert Brown has shown that nearly the same remark is applicable to the plants; and Mr. Gould finds that most of the birds from these opposite shores, though closely allied, are distinct. Considering these facts, together with the presence in South Australia of upraised modern Tertiary deposits and of extinct volcanoes, it seems probable that the eastern and western shores once formed two islands, separated from each other by a shallow sea, with their inhabitants generically, though not specifically, related, exactly as are those of New Guinea and Northern Australia, and that within a geologically recent period a series of upheavals converted the intermediate sea into those desert plains which are now known to stretch from the southern coast far northward, and which then became colonised from the regions to the east and west." On this point see Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," page ci, where Jukes' views are discussed. For an interesting account of the bearings of the submergence of parts of Australia, see Thiselton-Dyer, "R. Geogr. Soc. Jour." XXII., No. 6.) Waterhouse's "Mammalia," and speculated that these two corners, now separated by gulf and low land, must have existed as two large islands; but it is odd that productions have not become more mingled; but it accords with, I think, a very general rule in the spreading of organic beings. I agree with what you say about Lyell; he learns more by word of mouth than by reading.

What you mention about the Cape flora's connection to Australia really worries me. Doesn't the highland of Abyssinia, and the mountains on the west coast, somewhat link the extra-tropical floras of Cape and Australia? I believe the significance of the Glacial period becomes clearer every day. I'm glad to hear about S.E. and S.W. Australia; I had a feeling after sending my letter that things were as you've described. You know, nearly the same goes for birds and mammals. A few years ago, I wrote in the "Annals of Natural History" about how South Australia has only a few unique species, apparently colonized from both the eastern and western coasts. Mr. Robert Brown indicated that the same applies to plants, while Mr. Gould found that most birds from these opposite shores, though closely related, are distinct. Considering these facts, along with the presence of raised modern Tertiary deposits and extinct volcanoes in South Australia, it seems likely that the eastern and western shores once formed two islands, separated by a shallow sea, with their inhabitants generically related, just like those of New Guinea and Northern Australia. Within a geological timespan, a series of upheavals turned the intermediate sea into the desert plains that now stretch from the southern coast far north, which were then colonized from the east and west. For more on this, see Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," page ci, which discusses Jukes' views. Also, for an intriguing analysis of the parts of Australia that submerged, check Thiselton-Dyer's article in the "R. Geogr. Soc. Jour." XXII., No. 6. I speculated that these two corners, currently separated by gulf and low land, must have once been two large islands; but it's strange that their productions haven't mixed more. Still, I think this aligns with a general pattern in how living beings spread. I agree with you about Lyell; he learns more through conversation than through reading.

Henslow has just gone, and has left me in a fit of enthusiastic admiration of his character. He is a really noble and good man.

Henslow just left, and he has me feeling a wave of admiration for his character. He is truly a noble and good person.

LETTER 342. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, December 1st {1858?}.

I thank you for so kindly taking the trouble of writing to me, on naturalised plants. I did not know of, or had forgotten, the clover case. How I wish I knew what plants the clover took the place of; but that would require more accurate knowledge of any one piece of ground than I suppose any one has. In the case of trees being so long-lived, I should think it would be extremely difficult to distinguish between true and new spreading of a species, and a rotation of crop. With respect to your idea of plants travelling west, I was much struck by a remark of yours in the penultimate "Linnean Journal" on the spreading of plants from America near Behring Straits. Do you not consider so many more seeds and plants being taken from Europe to America, than in a reverse direction, would go some way to account for comparative fewness of naturalised American plants here? Though I think one might wildly speculate on European weeds having become well fitted for cultivated land, during thousands of years of culture, whereas cultivated land would be a new home for native American weeds, and they would not consequently be able to beat their European rivals when put in contest with them on cultivated land. Here is a bit of wild theory! (342/1. See Asa Gray, "Scientific Papers," 1889, Volume II., page 235, on "The Pertinacity and Predominance of Weeds," where the view here given is adopted. In a letter to Asa Gray (November 6th, 1862), published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 390, Darwin wrote: "Does it not hurt your Yankee pride that we thrash you so confoundedly? I am sure Mrs. Gray will stick up for your own weeds. Ask her whether they are not more honest downright good sort of weeds.")

I really appreciate you taking the time to write to me about naturalized plants. I either didn't know or had forgotten about the clover situation. I wish I knew what plants were replaced by the clover, but that would require more detailed knowledge of a specific piece of land than I think anyone actually has. Considering how long trees live, it must be really tough to tell the difference between true and newly spread species versus crop rotation. Regarding your idea of plants moving west, I was really struck by something you mentioned in the second-to-last "Linnean Journal" about plants spreading from America near the Bering Straits. Don’t you think that the larger number of seeds and plants being taken from Europe to America, compared to the other way around, partly explains the relatively few naturalized American plants here? I mean, it seems possible to wildly speculate that European weeds have become well-suited for cultivated land after thousands of years of cultivation, while cultivated land would be a new home for native American weeds, making it hard for them to compete with their European counterparts on that same land. Here’s a bit of wild theory! (342/1. See Asa Gray, "Scientific Papers," 1889, Volume II., page 235, on "The Pertinacity and Predominance of Weeds," where the view here given is adopted. In a letter to Asa Gray (November 6th, 1862), published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 390, Darwin wrote: "Does it not hurt your Yankee pride that we thrash you so confoundedly? I am sure Mrs. Gray will stick up for your own weeds. Ask her whether they are not more honest downright good sort of weeds.")

But I did not sit down intending to scribble thus; but to beg a favour of you. I gave Hooker a list of species of Silene, on which Gartner has experimentised in crossing: now I want EXTREMELY to be permitted to say that such and such are believed by Mr. Bentham to be true species, and such and such to be only varieties. Unfortunately and stupidly, Gartner does not append author's name to the species.

But I didn’t sit down to jot down notes like this; I came to ask you for a favor. I gave Hooker a list of Silene species that Gartner experimented with through crossing. Now, I really want to be allowed to say that Mr. Bentham believes certain ones are true species, while others are just varieties. Unfortunately and foolishly, Gartner doesn’t include the author’s name with the species.

Thank you heartily for what you say about my book; but you will be greatly disappointed; it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas. My only hope is that I certainly see very many difficulties of gigantic stature.

Thank you so much for your thoughts on my book; however, I think you might be disappointed because it’s likely going to be too theoretical. It will probably only serve to organize some facts; although I believe I have a rough idea about the origin of species. But, unfortunately, it’s pretty common for writers to convince themselves that their ideas are correct. My only hope is that I definitely recognize many enormous challenges.

If you can remember any cases of one introduced species beating out or prevailing over another, I should be most thankful to hear it. I believe the common corn-poppy has been seen indigenous in Sicily. I should like to know whether you suppose that seedlings of this wild plant would stand a contest with our own poppy; I should almost expect that our poppies were in some degree acclimatised and accustomed to our cornfields. If this could be shown to be so in this and other cases, I think we could understand why many not-trained American plants would not succeed in our agrarian habitats.

If you can think of any examples where one introduced species has outcompeted or succeeded over another, I would really appreciate hearing about it. I believe the common corn-poppy has been found growing naturally in Sicily. I’d like to know if you think that seedlings of this wild plant could compete with our own poppy; I would almost expect that our poppies are somewhat acclimated and used to our farmland. If this could be demonstrated in this and other instances, I think we would understand why many unadapted American plants struggle to thrive in our agricultural environments.

LETTER 343. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(343/1. Mr. Darwin used the knowledge of the spread of introduced plants in North America and Australia to throw light on the cosmic migration of plants. Sir J.D. Hooker apparently objected that it was not fair to argue from agrarian to other plants; he also took a view differing slightly from that of Darwin as to climatal and other natural conditions favouring introduced plants in Australia.)

(343/1. Mr. Darwin used the knowledge of how introduced plants spread in North America and Australia to shed light on the broader migration of plants. Sir J.D. Hooker apparently argued that it wasn't fair to extrapolate from agricultural plants to others; he also had a slightly different viewpoint than Darwin regarding the climate and other natural conditions that favor introduced plants in Australia.)

Down, January 28th, 1859.

Down, January 28, 1859.

Thanks about glaciers. It is a pleasure and profit to me to write to you, and as in your last you have touched on naturalised plants of Australia, I suppose you would not dislike to hear what I can say in answer. At least I know you would not wish me to defer to your authority, as long as not convinced.

Thanks for your thoughts on glaciers. It's enjoyable and beneficial for me to write to you, and since you mentioned naturalized plants of Australia in your last message, I’m sure you’d like to hear my response. I know you wouldn’t want me to just accept your views without being convinced otherwise.

I quite agree to what you say about our agrarian plants being accustomed to cultivated land, and so no fair test. Buckman has, I think, published this notion with respect to North America. With respect to roadside plants, I cannot feel so sure that these ought to be excluded, as animals make roads in many wild countries. (343/2. In the account of naturalised plants in Australia in Sir J.D. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," 1859, page cvi, many of the plants are marked "Britain—waste places," "Europe—cornfields," etc. In the same list the species which have also invaded North America—a large number—are given. On the margin of Darwin's copy is scribbled in pencil: "Very good, showing how many of the same species are naturalised in Australia and United States, with very different climates; opposed to your conclusion." Sir Joseph supposed that one chief cause of the intrusion of English plants in Australia, and not vice versa, was the great importation of European seed to Australia and the scanty return of Australian seed.)

I completely agree with you about our agricultural plants being used to cultivated land, making it an unfair test. I think Buckman has published this idea regarding North America. As for roadside plants, I'm not as sure that they should be excluded since animals create roads in many wild regions. (343/2. In the account of naturalized plants in Australia in Sir J.D. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," 1859, page cvi, many of the plants are labeled "Britain—waste places," "Europe—cornfields," etc. In the same list, the species that have also spread to North America—a significant number—are included. On the margin of Darwin's copy, there's a note scribbled in pencil: "Very good, showing how many of the same species are naturalized in Australia and the United States, with very different climates; opposed to your conclusion." Sir Joseph believed that one main reason for the influx of English plants in Australia, rather than the other way around, was the significant importation of European seeds to Australia and the minimal return of Australian seeds.)

I have now looked and found passage in F. Muller's (343/3. Ferdinand Muller.) letter to me, in which he says: "In the WILDERNESSES of Australia some European perennials are "advancing in sure progress," "not to be arrested," etc. He gives as instances (so I suppose there are other cases) eleven species, viz., 3. Rumex, Poterium sanguisorba, Potentilla anserina, Medicago sativa, Taraxacum officinale, Marrubium vulgare, Plantago lanceolata, P. major, Lolium perenne. All these are seeding freely. Now I remember, years and years ago, your discussing with me how curiously easily plants get naturalised on uninhabited islands, if ships even touch there. I remember we discussed packages being opened with old hay or straw, etc. Now think of hides and wool (and wool exported largely over Europe), and plants introduced, and samples of corn; and I must think that if Australia had been the old country, and Europe had been the Botany Bay, very few, very much fewer, Australian plants would have run wild in Europe than have now in Australia.

I have now looked and found a passage in F. Muller's (343/3. Ferdinand Muller.) letter to me, in which he says: "In the wildernesses of Australia, some European perennials are 'advancing in steady progress,' 'not to be stopped,' etc. He gives as examples (and I suppose there are other cases) eleven species, namely, 3. Rumex, Poterium sanguisorba, Potentilla anserina, Medicago sativa, Taraxacum officinale, Marrubium vulgare, Plantago lanceolata, P. major, and Lolium perenne. All these are seeding freely. Now I remember, years ago, you discussing with me how easily plants get naturalized on uninhabited islands if ships even touch there. I remember we talked about packages being opened containing old hay or straw, etc. Now think of hides and wool (which are exported largely across Europe), and plants that were introduced, and samples of corn; I have to believe that if Australia had been the old country, and Europe had been the Botany Bay, very few, far fewer, Australian plants would have gone wild in Europe than have done so in Australia.

The case seems to me much stronger between La Plata and Spain.

The case feels way stronger between La Plata and Spain.

Nevertheless, I will put in my one sentence on this head, illustrating the greater migration during Glacial period from north to south than reversely, very humbly and cautiously. (343/4. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 379. Darwin refers to the facts given by Hooker and De Candolle showing a stronger migratory flow from north to south than in the opposite direction. Darwin accounts for this by the northern plants having been long subject to severe competition in their northern homes, and having acquired a greater "dominating power" than the southern forms. "Just in the same manner as we see at the present day that very many European productions cover the ground in La Plata, and in a lesser degree in Australia, and have to a certain extent beaten the natives; whereas extremely few southern forms have become naturalised in any part of Europe, though hides, wool, and other objects likely to carry seeds have been largely imported during the last two or three centuries from La Plata, and during the last thirty or forty years from Australia.')

Nevertheless, I will add my one sentence on this topic, showing that there was a greater migration during the Glacial period from north to south than in the opposite direction, very humbly and cautiously. (343/4. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 379. Darwin refers to the facts presented by Hooker and De Candolle, which indicate a stronger migratory flow from north to south than the other way around. Darwin explains this by noting that northern plants have been exposed to intense competition in their northern habitats and have developed a greater "dominating power" compared to the southern varieties. "Just as we see today that many European species dominate in La Plata, and to a lesser extent in Australia, beating out the local species; while very few southern species have become established anywhere in Europe, despite the fact that hides, wool, and other items that likely carry seeds have been extensively imported from La Plata over the last two or three centuries and from Australia in the last thirty or forty years.")

I am very glad to hear you are making good progress with your Australian Introduction. I am, thank God, more than half through my chapter on geographical distribution, and have done the abstract of the Glacial part...

I’m really happy to hear you’re making great progress with your Australian Introduction. Thankfully, I’m over halfway through my chapter on geographical distribution, and I’ve completed the abstract for the Glacial section...

LETTER 344. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 30th, 1859.

Many thanks for your agreeable note. Please keep the geographical MS. till you hear from me, for I may have to beg you to send it to Murray; as through Lyell's intervention I hope he will publish, but he requires first to see MS. (344/1. "The Origin of Species"; see a letter to Lyell in "Life and Letters," II., page 151.)

Many thanks for your friendly note. Please hold on to the geographical manuscript until you hear from me, as I might need to ask you to send it to Murray; with Lyell's help, I hope he will publish it, but he needs to see the manuscript first.

I demur to what you say that we change climate of the world to account for "migration of bugs, flies, etc." WE do nothing of the sort; for WE rest on scored rocks, old moraines, arctic shells, and mammifers. I have no theory whatever about cause of cold, no more than I have for cause of elevation and subsidence; and I can see no reason why I should not use cold, or elevation, or subsidence to explain any other phenomena, such as distribution. I think if I had space and time I could make a pretty good case against any great continental changes since the Glacial epoch, and this has mainly led me to give up the Lyellian doctrine as insufficient to explain all mutations of climate.

I disagree with your suggestion that we change the world's climate to account for "migration of bugs, flies, etc." We don’t do anything like that; we rely on scored rocks, ancient moraines, Arctic shells, and mammals. I have no theories about the cause of cold, just as I don’t have any regarding elevation and subsidence; and I see no reason why I shouldn’t use cold, elevation, or subsidence to explain other phenomena, like distribution. I believe that if I had the space and time, I could build a strong argument against any major continental changes since the Glacial epoch, and this has mainly led me to abandon the Lyellian doctrine as inadequate to explain all climate changes.

I was amused at the British Museum evidence. (344/2. This refers to the letter to Murchison (Letter 65), published with the evidence of the 1858 enquiry by the Trustees of the British Museum.) I am made to give my opinion so authoritatively on botanical matters!...

I found the evidence from the British Museum quite entertaining. (344/2. This refers to the letter to Murchison (Letter 65), published with the evidence from the 1858 inquiry by the Trustees of the British Museum.) I'm expected to share my opinion so confidently on botanical issues!...

As for our belief in the origin of species making any difference in descriptive work, I am sure it is incorrect, for I did all my barnacle work under this point of view. Only I often groaned that I was not allowed simply to decide whether a difference was sufficient to deserve a name.

As for our belief in the origin of species affecting descriptive work, I’m sure that’s not true, since I did all my barnacle research with this perspective. I just often wished I could simply decide if a difference was significant enough to warrant a name.

I am glad to hear about Huxley—a wonderful man.

I’m glad to hear about Huxley—a great guy.

LETTER 345. TO J.D. HOOKER. Wells Terrace, Ilkley, Otley, Yorkshire, Thursday {before December 9th, 1859}.

I have read your discussion (345/1. See "Introductory Essay," page c. Darwin did not receive this work until December 23rd, so that the reference is to proof-sheets.), as usual, with great interest. The points are awfully intricate, almost at present beyond the confines of knowledge. The view which I should have looked at as perhaps most probable (though it hardly differs from yours) is that the whole world during the Secondary ages was inhabited by marsupials, araucarias (Mem.—Fossil wood so common of this nature in South America (345/2. See Letter 6, Note.)), Banksia, etc.; and that these were supplanted and exterminated in the greater area of the north, but were left alive in the south. Whence these very ancient forms originally proceeded seems a hopeless enquiry.

I read your discussion (345/1. See "Introductory Essay," page c. Darwin didn't get this work until December 23rd, so the reference is to proof-sheets.) with my usual interest. The points are really complicated, almost beyond our current understanding. The perspective I would consider the most likely (though it doesn’t differ much from yours) is that during the Secondary ages, the entire world was populated by marsupials, araucarias (Mem.—Fossil wood of this type is very common in South America (345/2. See Letter 6, Note.)), Banksia, and so on; and that these were replaced and wiped out in the larger northern regions, while they survived in the south. Figuring out where these very ancient forms came from seems like a futile investigation.

Your remarks on the passage of the northern forms southward, and of the southern forms of no kinds passing northward, seem to me grand. Admirable, also, are your remarks on the struggle of vegetation: I find that I have rather misunderstood you, for I feared I differed from you, which I see is hardly the case at all. I cannot help suspecting that you put rather too much weight to climate in the case of Australia. La Plata seems to present such analogous facts, though I suppose the naturalisation of European plants has there taken place on a still larger scale than in Australia...

Your comments about how northern species move south and southern species not moving north are excellent. I also admire your insights on plant competition: I realize now that I misunderstood you, as I thought I disagreed with you, but that’s not really the case. I can’t help but think that you might be placing too much importance on climate when it comes to Australia. La Plata seems to show similar facts, although I suppose the introduction of European plants there has happened on an even larger scale than in Australia...

You will get four copies of my book—one for self, and three for the foreign botanists—in about ten days, or sooner; i.e., as soon as the sheets can be bound in cloth. I hope this will not be too late for your parcels.

You will receive four copies of my book—one for yourself and three for the foreign botanists—in about ten days, or sooner; that is, as soon as the sheets can be bound in cloth. I hope this won't be too late for your parcels.

When you read my volume, use your pencil and score, so that some time I may have a talk with you on any criticisms.

When you read my book, feel free to mark it up with your pencil and notes, so that we can have a conversation later about any feedback you have.

LETTER 346. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, December 17th, {1859}.

Whilst I think of it, let me tell you that years ago I remember seeing in the Museum of the Geological Society a tooth of hippopotamus from Madagascar: this, on geographical and all other grounds, ought to be looked to. Pray make a note of this fact. (346/1. At a meeting of the Geological Society, May 1st, 1833, a letter was read from Mr. Telfair to Sir Alex. Johnstone, accompanying a specimen of recent conglomerate rock, from the island of Madagascar, containing fragments of a tusk, and part of a molar tooth of a hippopotamus ("Proc. Geol. Soc." 1833, page 479). There is a reference to these remains of hippopotamus in a paper by Mr. R.B. Newton in the "Geol. Mag." Volume X., 1893; and in Dr. Forsyth Major's memoir on Megaladapis Madagascariensis ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 185, page 30, 1894).

While I think of it, let me tell you that years ago I remember seeing in the Museum of the Geological Society a tooth from a hippopotamus found in Madagascar: this, based on geographical and all other factors, should be examined. Please take note of this fact. (346/1. At a meeting of the Geological Society, May 1st, 1833, a letter was read from Mr. Telfair to Sir Alex. Johnstone, accompanying a specimen of recent conglomerate rock from the island of Madagascar, containing fragments of a tusk and part of a molar tooth from a hippopotamus ("Proc. Geol. Soc." 1833, page 479). There is a reference to these hippopotamus remains in a paper by Mr. R.B. Newton in the "Geol. Mag." Volume X., 1893; and in Dr. Forsyth Major's memoir on Megaladapis Madagascariensis ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 185, page 30, 1894).

Since this letter was written, several bones belonging to two or possibly three species of hippopotamus have been found in Madagascar. See Forsyth Major, "On the General Results of a Zoological Expedition to Madagascar in 1894-96" ("Proc. Zool. Soc." 1896, page 971.))

Since this letter was written, several bones from two or maybe three species of hippopotamus have been discovered in Madagascar. See Forsyth Major, "On the General Results of a Zoological Expedition to Madagascar in 1894-96" ("Proc. Zool. Soc." 1896, page 971.)

We have returned a week ago from Ilkley, and it has done me some decided good. In London I saw Lyell (the poor man who has "rushed into the bosom of two heresies"—by the way, I saw his celts, and how intensely interesting), and he told me that you were very antagonistic to my views on species. I well knew this would be the case. I must freely confess, the difficulties and objections are terrific; but I cannot believe that a false theory would explain, as it seems to me it does explain, so many classes of facts. Do you ever see Wollaston? He and you would agree nicely about my book (346/2. "Origin of Species," 1859.)—ill luck to both of you. If you have anything at all pleasant for me to hear, do write; and if all that you can say is very unpleasant, it will do you good to expectorate. And it is well known that you are very fond of writing letters. Farewell, my good old friend and enemy.

We got back a week ago from Ilkley, and it really helped me out. In London, I met up with Lyell (the poor guy who has "jumped into the arms of two heresies"—by the way, I checked out his celts, and they were incredibly interesting), and he mentioned that you strongly oppose my views on species. I completely expected that. I have to admit, the challenges and objections are huge; but I can't believe that a false theory would explain, as it seems to explain, so many different facts. Do you ever see Wollaston? You and he would probably agree well about my book (346/2. "Origin of Species," 1859.)—bad luck for both of you. If you have anything nice to tell me, please write; and if all you can say is unpleasant, it will do you good to get it off your chest. And it's well-known that you really enjoy writing letters. Goodbye, my good old friend and foe.

Do make a note about the hippopotamus. If you are such a gentleman as to write, pray tell me how Torquay agrees with your health.

Do make a note about the hippo. If you're polite enough to write, please let me know how Torquay is treating your health.

(PLATE: DR. ASA GRAY, 1867.)

LETTER 347. TO ASA GRAY. Down, December 24th {1859}.

I have been for ten weeks at Water-cure, and on my return a fortnight ago through London I found a copy of your Memoir, and heartily do I thank you for it. (347/1. "Diagnostic Characters of New Species of Phaenogamous Plants collected in Japan by Charles Wright...with Observations upon the Relations of the Japanese Flora to that of North America and of other parts of the Northern Temperate Zone" ("Mem. American Acad. Arts and Sci." Volume VI., page 377, 1857).) I have not read it, and shall not be able very soon, for I am much overworked, and my stomach has got nearly as bad as ever.

I've been at a water treatment center for ten weeks, and when I returned two weeks ago through London, I found a copy of your Memoir. I truly appreciate it. (347/1. "Diagnostic Characters of New Species of Phaenogamous Plants collected in Japan by Charles Wright...with Observations upon the Relations of the Japanese Flora to that of North America and of other parts of the Northern Temperate Zone" ("Mem. American Acad. Arts and Sci." Volume VI., page 377, 1857).) I haven't read it yet, and I won't be able to for a while because I'm really overworked, and my stomach has gotten nearly as bad as ever.

With respect to the discussion on climate, I beg you to believe that I never put myself for a moment in competition with Dana; but when one has thought on a subject, one cannot avoid forming some opinion. What I wrote to Hooker I forget, after reading only a few sheets of your Memoir, which I saw would be full of interest to me. Hooker asked me to write to you, but, as I told him, I would not presume to express an opinion to you without careful deliberation. What he wrote I know not: I had previously several years ago seen (by whom I forget) some speculation on warmer period in the U. States subsequent to Glacial period; and I had consulted Lyell, who seemed much to doubt, and Lyell's judgment is really admirably cautious. The arguments advanced in your paper and in your letter seem to me hardly sufficient; not that I should be at all sorry to admit this subsequent and intercalated warmer period—the more changes the merrier, I think. On the other hand, I do not believe that introduction of the Old World forms into New World subsequent to the Glacial period will do for the modified or representative forms in the two Worlds. There has been too much change in comparison with the little change of isolated alpine forms; but you will see this in my book. (347/2. "Origin of Species" (1859), Chapter XI., pages 365 et seq.) I may just make a few remarks why at first sight I do not attach much weight to the argument in your letter about the warmer climate. Firstly, about the level of the land having been lower subsequently to Glacial period, as evidenced by the whole, etc., I doubt whether meteorological knowledge is sufficient for this deduction: turning to the S. hemisphere, it might be argued that a greater extent of water made the temperature lower; and when much of the northern land was lower, it would have been covered by the sea and intermigration between Old and New Worlds would have been checked. Secondly, I doubt whether any inference on nature of climate can be deduced from extinct species of mammals. If the musk-ox and deer of great size of your Barren-Grounds had been known only by fossil bones, who would have ventured to surmise the excessively cold climate they lived under? With respect to food of large animals, if you care about the subject will you turn to my discussion on this subject partly in respect to the Elephas primigenius in my "Journal of Researches" (Murray's Home and Colonial Library), Chapter V., page 85. (347/3. "The firm conviction of the necessity of a vegetation possessing a character of tropical luxuriance to support such large animals, and the impossibility of reconciling this with the proximity of perpetual congelation, was one chief cause of the several theories of sudden revolutions of climate...I am far from supposing that the climate has not changed since the period when these animals lived, which now lie buried in the ice. At present I only wish to show that as far as quantity of food alone is concerned, the ancient rhinoceroses might have roamed over the steppes of Central Siberia even in their present condition, as well as the living rhinoceroses and elephants over the karoos of Southern Africa" ("Journal of Researches," page 89, 1888).) In this country we infer from remains of Elephas primigenius that the climate at the period of its embedment was very severe, as seems countenanced by its woolly covering, by the nature of the deposits with angular fragments, the nature of the co-embedded shells, and co-existence of the musk-ox. I had formerly gathered from Lyell that the relative position of the Megatherium and Mylodon with respect to the Glacial deposits, had not been well made out; but perhaps it has been so recently. Such are my reasons for not as yet admitting the warmer period subsequent to Glacial epoch; but I daresay I may be quite wrong, and shall not be at all sorry to be proved so.

With regard to the climate discussion, I hope you understand that I never considered myself in competition with Dana; but once you think about a subject, you can't help but form some opinion. I can't remember what I wrote to Hooker after only reading a few pages of your Memoir, which I clearly found interesting. Hooker asked me to reach out to you, but as I told him, I wouldn't presume to share my opinion without careful thought. I don’t know what he wrote; a few years ago, I saw some speculation (I forget by whom) about a warmer period in the U.S. occurring after the Glacial period, and I consulted Lyell, who seemed quite doubtful—his judgment is impressively cautious. The arguments presented in your paper and letter don't seem strong enough to me; not that I would be upset to accept this subsequent and additional warmer period—more changes, the better, in my opinion. However, I don't believe that the introduction of Old World species into the New World after the Glacial period explains the modified or representative forms in both worlds. There has been too much change compared to the minor changes in isolated alpine forms; but you'll find more on this in my book. (347/2. "Origin of Species" (1859), Chapter XI., pages 365 et seq.) I’d just like to mention a few reasons why I don’t give much weight to the argument in your letter about the warmer climate at first glance. First, concerning the land level being lower after the Glacial period, as evidenced by the whole, I doubt if our meteorological knowledge is enough to draw that conclusion: for example, in the Southern Hemisphere, it could be argued that a larger body of water lowered the temperature; and when a lot of the northern land was lower, it would have been submerged, preventing migration between the Old and New Worlds. Second, I question whether we can deduce anything about climate from extinct mammal species. If we only knew of the musk-ox and large deer from your Barren Grounds by fossil bones, who would have guessed the extremely cold climate they lived in? Regarding the diet of large animals, if you are interested in the topic, please refer to my discussion on this in relation to Elephas primigenius in my "Journal of Researches" (Murray's Home and Colonial Library), Chapter V., page 85. (347/3. "The firm conviction of the necessity of a vegetation possessing a character of tropical luxuriance to support such large animals, and the impossibility of reconciling this with the proximity of perpetual congelation, was one chief cause of the several theories of sudden revolutions of climate...I am far from supposing that the climate has not changed since the period when these animals lived, which now lie buried in the ice. At present I only wish to show that as far as quantity of food alone is concerned, the ancient rhinoceroses might have roamed over the steppes of Central Siberia even in their present condition, as well as the living rhinoceroses and elephants over the karoos of Southern Africa" ("Journal of Researches," page 89, 1888).) In this country, we conclude from the remains of Elephas primigenius that the climate at the time it was buried was very harsh, as suggested by its woolly covering, the nature of the deposits with angular fragments, the kind of shells found alongside it, and the coexistence of the musk-ox. I had previously gathered from Lyell that the relationship of the Megatherium and Mylodon concerning the Glacial deposits hadn’t been clearly established, but that might have changed recently. Those are my reasons for not accepting the warmer period after the Glacial epoch yet; but I might be completely wrong, and I wouldn’t be upset to be proven so.

I shall assuredly read your essay with care, for I have seen as yet only a fragment, and very likely some parts, which I could not formerly clearly understand, will be clear enough.

I will definitely read your essay carefully, since I’ve only seen a part of it so far, and it's likely that some sections, which I couldn’t fully understand before, will make more sense now.

LETTER 348. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, {December} 26th, {1859}.

LETTER 348. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 26th, 1859.

I have just read with intense interest as far as page xxvi (348/1. For Darwin's impression of the "Introductory Essay to the Tasmanian Flora" as a whole, see "Life and Letters," II., page 257.), i.e. to where you treat of the Australian Flora itself; and the latter part I remember thinking most of in the proof-sheets. Either you have altered a good deal, or I did not see all or was purblind, for I have been much more interested with all the first part than I was before,—not that I did not like it at first. All seems to me very clearly written, and I have been baulked at only one sentence. I think, on the whole, I like the geological, or rather palaeontological, discussion best: it seems to me excellent, and admirably cautious. I agree with all that you say as far as my want of special knowledge allows me to judge.

I recently read with great interest up to page xxvi (348/1. For Darwin's thoughts on the "Introductory Essay to the Tasmanian Flora" as a whole, see "Life and Letters," II., page 257.), which is where you discuss the Australian Flora. I remember being especially impressed with the later sections in the proof-sheets. Either you’ve made significant changes, or I missed some things, because I find the first part much more engaging this time than I did before—not that I didn’t like it initially. Everything is very clearly written, and I only stumbled on one sentence. Overall, I think I enjoy the geological, or rather palaeontological, discussion the most; it seems excellent and very careful. I agree with everything you say as far as my limited knowledge allows me to assess it.

I have no criticisms of any importance, but I should have liked more facts in one or two places, which I shall not ask about. I rather demur to the fairness of your comparison of rising and sinking areas (348/2. Hooker, op. cit., page xv, paragraph 24. Hooker's view was that sinking islands "contain comparatively fewer species and fewer peculiar generic types than those which are rising." In Darwin's copy of the Essay is written on the margin of page xvi: "I doubt whole case."), as in the Indian Ocean you compare volcanic land with exclusively coral islands, and these latter are very small in area and have very peculiar soil, and during their formation are likely to have been utterly submerged, perhaps many times, and restocked with existing plants. In the Pacific, ignorance of Marianne and Caroline and other chief islands almost prevent comparison (348/3. Gambier Island would be an interesting case. {Note in original.}); and is it right to include American islands like Juan Fernandez and Galapagos? In such lofty and probably ancient islands as Sandwich and Tahiti it cannot make much difference in the flora whether they have sunk or risen a few thousand feet of late ages.

I don't have any major criticisms, but I would have liked a bit more information in a couple of places, which I won’t ask about. I do question the fairness of your comparison between rising and sinking areas (348/2. Hooker, op. cit., page xv, paragraph 24. Hooker's view was that sinking islands "contain comparatively fewer species and fewer peculiar generic types than those which are rising." In Darwin's copy of the Essay, it is noted in the margin of page xvi: "I doubt the whole case."), as in the Indian Ocean you compare volcanic land with only coral islands, which are much smaller and have very unique soil. During their formation, they were likely completely submerged multiple times and then repopulated with existing plants. In the Pacific, our lack of knowledge about Marianne, Caroline, and other major islands makes comparison difficult (348/3. Gambier Island would be an interesting case. {Note in original.}); and is it appropriate to include American islands like Juan Fernandez and the Galapagos? For high and likely ancient islands like Sandwich and Tahiti, it probably doesn’t matter much for the flora whether they’ve sunk or risen a few thousand feet in recent ages.

I wish you could work in your notion of certain parts of the Tropics having kept hot, whilst other parts were cooled; I tried this scheme in my mind, and it seemed to fail. On the whole, I like very much all that I have read of your Introduction, and I cannot doubt that it will have great weight in converting other botanists from the doctrine of immutable creation. What a lot of matter there is in one of your pages!

I wish you could consider your idea that some areas of the Tropics remained warm while others cooled down; I tried to think this through, and it didn’t seem to work. Overall, I really enjoy everything I’ve read from your Introduction, and I’m sure it will significantly influence other botanists to rethink the idea of unchanging creation. There’s so much information packed into just one of your pages!

There are many points I wish much to discuss with you.

There are many things I'd really like to talk to you about.

How I wish you could work out the Pacific floras: I remember ages ago reading some of your MS. In Paris there must be, I should think, materials from French voyages. But of all places in the world I should like to see a good flora of the Sandwich Islands. (348/4. See Hillebrand, "Flora of the Hawaiian Islands," 1888.) I would subscribe 50 pounds to any collector to go there and work at the islands. Would it not pay for a collector to go there, especially if aided by any subscription? It would be a fair occasion to ask for aid from the Government grant of the Royal Society. I think it is the most isolated group in the world, and the islands themselves well isolated from each other.

How I wish you could research the Pacific plant life! I remember reading some of your manuscript ages ago. In Paris, there should be materials from French voyages. But of all places, I would love to see a detailed flora of the Sandwich Islands. (348/4. See Hillebrand, "Flora of the Hawaiian Islands," 1888.) I'd contribute 50 pounds to any collector willing to go there and study the islands. Wouldn't it be beneficial for a collector to go there, especially with some financial support? It would be a good opportunity to seek assistance from the Government grant of the Royal Society. I believe it's the most isolated group of islands in the world, and the islands themselves are quite isolated from each other.

LETTER 349. TO ASA GRAY. Down, January 7th {1860}.

I have just finished your Japan memoir (349/1. "Diagnostic Characters of New Species of Phaenogamous Plants collected in Japan by Charles Wright. With observations upon the Relations of the Japanese Flora to that of North America, etc.: 1857-59."—"Memoirs of Amer. Acad." VI.), and I must thank you for the extreme interest with which I have read it. It seems to me a most curious case of distribution; and how very well you argue, and put the case from analogy on the high probability of single centres of creation. That great man Agassiz, when he comes to reason, seems to me as great in taking a wrong view as he is great in observing and classifying. One of the points which has struck me as most remarkable and inexplicable in your memoir is the number of monotypic (or nearly so) genera amongst the representative forms of Japan and N. America. And how very singular the preponderance of identical and representative species in Eastern, compared with Western, America. I have no good map showing how wide the moderately low country is on the west side of the Rocky Mountains; nor, of course, do I know whether the whole of the low western territory has been botanised; but it has occurred to me, looking at such maps as I have, that the eastern area must be larger than the western, which would account to a certain small extent for preponderance on eastern side of the representative species. Is there any truth in this suspicion? Your memoir sets me marvelling and reflecting. I confess I am not able quite to understand your Geology at pages 447, 448; but you would probably not care to hear my difficulties, and therefore I will not trouble you with them.

I just finished reading your memoir on Japan (349/1. "Diagnostic Characters of New Species of Phaenogamous Plants collected in Japan by Charles Wright. With observations upon the Relations of the Japanese Flora to that of North America, etc.: 1857-59."—"Memoirs of Amer. Acad." VI.), and I want to thank you for how engaging it was. It strikes me as a fascinating case of distribution, and you present your arguments very well, especially regarding the high probability of single centers of creation. That great man Agassiz, when he reasons, seems to take as many wrong turns as he does well in observing and classifying. One aspect that stands out to me as particularly remarkable and puzzling in your memoir is the number of monotypic (or nearly monotypic) genera among the representative forms of Japan and North America. It's also quite strange how there is a predominance of identical and representative species in Eastern America compared to Western America. I don’t have a good map that shows how extensive the moderately low land is on the west side of the Rocky Mountains, and I don’t know if the entire low western region has been studied botanically. However, it has occurred to me, based on the maps I do have, that the eastern area might be larger than the western one, which could partly explain the dominance of representative species on the eastern side. Is there any truth to this hunch? Your memoir leaves me marveling and reflecting. I admit I’m having trouble fully grasping your geology on pages 447 and 448, but I doubt you’d want to hear about my difficulties, so I won’t bother you with them.

I was so grieved to get a letter from Dana at Florence, giving me a very poor (though improved) account of his health.

I was really upset to receive a letter from Dana in Florence, giving me a rather bad (though better) update on his health.

LETTER 350. TO T.H. HUXLEY. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, November 1st {1860}.

Your note has been wonderfully interesting. Your term, "pithecoid man," is a whole paper and theory in itself. How I hope the skull of the new Macrauchenia has come. It is grand. I return Hooker's letter, with very many thanks. The glacial action on Lebanon is particularly interesting, considering its position between Europe and Himalaya. I get more and more convinced that my doctrine of mundane Glacial period is correct (350/1. In the 1st edition of the "Origin," page 373, Darwin argues in favour of a Glacial period practically simultaneous over the globe. In the 5th edition, 1869, page 451, he adopted Mr. Croll's views on the alternation of cold periods in the northern and southern hemispheres. An interesting modification of the mundane Glacial period theory is given in Belt's "The Naturalist in Nicaragua," 1874, page 265. Mr. Belt's views are discussed in Wallace's "Geogr. Distribution," 1876, Volume I., page 151.), and that it is the most important of all late phenomena with respect to distribution of plants and animals. I hope your Review (350/2. The history of the foundation of the "Natural History Review" is given in Huxley's "Life and Letters," Volume I., page 209. See Letter 107.) progresses favourably. I am exhausted and not well, so write briefly; for we have had nine days of as much misery as man can endure. My poor daughter has suffered pitiably, and night and day required three persons to support her. The crisis of extreme danger is over, and she is rallying surprisingly, but the doctors are yet doubtful of ultimate issue. But the suffering was so pitiable I almost got to wish to see her die. She is easy now. When she will be fit to travel home I know not. I most sincerely hope that Mrs. Huxley keeps up pretty well. The work which most men have to do is a blessing to them in such cases as yours. God bless you.

Your note has been really interesting. Your term, "pithecoid man," could be a whole paper and theory on its own. I really hope the skull of the new Macrauchenia has arrived. It's impressive. I'm returning Hooker's letter with many thanks. The glacial activity on Lebanon is particularly intriguing, given its location between Europe and the Himalayas. I'm becoming more convinced that my idea of a global Glacial period is correct, and it's the most significant factor in the recent distribution of plants and animals. I hope your Review is progressing well. I'm exhausted and not feeling well, so I'll keep this short; we've had nine days of as much misery as anyone can handle. My poor daughter has been suffering greatly and has needed three people to support her day and night. The worst danger has passed, and she is recovering surprisingly well, but the doctors are still unsure of the final outcome. The suffering was so heartbreaking that I almost wished for her to pass away. She is more comfortable now. I don't know when she'll be well enough to travel back home. I sincerely hope that Mrs. Huxley is doing alright. The work that most people have to do can be a blessing in tough times like yours. Take care.

Sir H. Holland came here to see her, and was wonderfully kind.

Sir H. Holland came here to see her, and he was incredibly kind.

LETTER 351. TO C. LYELL. Down, November 20th {1860}.

I quite agree in admiration of Forbes' Essay (351/1. "Memoir of the Geolog. Survey of the United Kingdom," Volume I., 1846.), yet, on my life, I think it has done, in some respects, as much mischief as good. Those who believe in vast continental extensions will never investigate means of distribution. Good heavens, look at Heer's map of Atlantis! I thought his division and lines of travel of the British plants very wild, and with hardly any foundation. I quite agree with what you say of almost certainty of Glacial epoch having destroyed the Spanish saxifrages, etc., in Ireland. (351/2. See Letter 20.) I remember well discussing this with Hooker; and I suggested that a slightly different or more equable and humid climate might have allowed (with perhaps some extension of land) the plants in question to have grown along the entire western shores between Spain and Ireland, and that subsequently they became extinct, except at the present points under an oceanic climate. The point of Devonshire now has a touch of the same character.

I completely agree with the admiration for Forbes' Essay (351/1. "Memoir of the Geolog. Survey of the United Kingdom," Volume I., 1846.), but honestly, I think it has caused as much trouble as it has done good in some ways. Those who believe in extensive continental extensions will never look into how things are distributed. Good grief, just look at Heer's map of Atlantis! I found his division and routes of British plants to be quite extreme and lacking a solid basis. I also fully support what you say about the almost certain idea that the Glacial epoch wiped out the Spanish saxifrages, etc., in Ireland. (351/2. See Letter 20.) I clearly remember discussing this with Hooker, and I suggested that a slightly different or more balanced and humid climate could have allowed the plants in question to grow along the entire western coastline between Spain and Ireland, and then they eventually went extinct, except at the current locations under an oceanic climate. The point in Devonshire now has a bit of the same situation.

I demur in this particular case to Forbes' transportal by ice. The subject has rather gone out of my mind, and it is not worth looking to my MS. discussion on migration during the Glacial period; but I remember that the distribution of mammalia, and the very regular relation of the Alpine plants to points due north (alluded to in "Origin"), seemed to indicate continuous land at close of Glacial period.

I hesitate to agree with Forbes' theory about migration via ice. The topic has mostly slipped my mind, and it’s not worth consulting my manuscript discussion on migration during the Glacial period. However, I recall that the distribution of mammals and the clear relationship of Alpine plants to northern points—mentioned in "Origin"—suggested that there was continuous land at the end of the Glacial period.

LETTER 352. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 18th {1861}.

I have been recalling my thoughts on the question whether the Glacial period affected the whole world contemporaneously, or only one longitudinal belt after another. To my sorrow my old reasons for rejecting the latter alternative seem to me sufficient, and I should very much like to know what you think. Let us suppose that the cold affected the two Americas either before or after the Old World. Let it advance first either from north or south till the Tropics became slightly cooled, and a few temperate forms reached the Silla of Caracas and the mountains of Brazil. You would say, I suppose, that nearly all the tropical productions would be killed; and that subsequently, after the cold had moderated, tropical plants immigrated from the other non-chilled parts of the world. But this is impossible unless you bridge over the tropical parts of the Atlantic—a doctrine which you know I cannot admit, though in some respects wishing I could. Oswald Heer would make nothing of such a bridge. When the Glacial period affected the Old World, would it not be rather rash to suppose that the meridian of India, the Malay Archipelago, and Australia were refrigerated, and Africa not refrigerated? But let us grant that this was so; let us bridge over the Red Sea (though rather opposed to the former almost certain communication between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean); let us grant that Arabia and Persia were damp and fit for the passage of tropical plants: nevertheless, just look at the globe and fancy the cold slowly coming on, and the plants under the tropics travelling towards the equator, and it seems to me highly improbable that they could escape from India to the still hot regions of Africa, for they would have to go westward with a little northing round the northern shores of the Indian Ocean. So if Africa were refrigerated first, there would be considerable difficulty in the tropical productions of Africa escaping into the still hot regions of India. Here again you would have to bridge over the Indian Ocean within so very recent a period, and not in the line of the Laccadive Archipelago. If you suppose the cold to travel from the southern pole northwards, it will not help us, unless we suppose that the countries immediately north of the northern tropic were at the same time warmer, so as to allow free passage from India to Africa, which seems to me too complex and unsupported an hypothesis to admit. Therefore I cannot see that the supposition of different longitudinal belts of the world being cooled at different periods helps us much. The supposition of the whole world being cooled contemporaneously (but perhaps not quite equally, South America being less cooled than the Old World) seems to me the simplest hypothesis, and does not add to the great difficulty of all the tropical productions not having been exterminated. I still think that a few species of each still existing tropical genus must have survived in the hottest or most favourable spots, either dry or damp. The tropical productions, though much distressed by the fall of temperature, would still be under the same conditions of the length of the day, etc., and would be still exposed to nearly the same enemies, as insects and other animals; whereas the invading temperate productions, though finding a favouring temperature, would have some of their conditions of life new, and would be exposed to many new enemies. But I fully admit the difficulty to be very great. I cannot see the full force of your difficulty of no known cause of a mundane change of temperature. We know no cause of continental elevations and depressions, yet we admit them. Can you believe, looking to Europe alone, that the intense cold, which must have prevailed when such gigantic glaciers extended on the plains of N. Italy, was due merely to changed positions of land within so recent a period? I cannot. It would be far too long a story, but it could, I think, be clearly shown that all our continents existed approximately in their present positions long before the Glacial period; which seems opposed to such gigantic geographical changes necessary to cause such a vast fall of temperature. The Glacial period endured in Europe and North America whilst the level of the land oscillated in height fully 3,000 feet, and this does not look as if changed level was the cause of the Glacial period. But I have written an unreasonably long discussion. Do not answer me at length, but send me a few words some time on the subject.

I’ve been thinking about whether the Ice Age affected the entire world at once, or just one strip of land after another. Sadly, my old reasons for dismissing the second option still seem valid, and I’d really like to know your thoughts. Let’s say the cold hit the Americas either before or after it affected the Old World. Imagine it moving in from either the north or the south until the Tropics cooled slightly, causing a few temperate species to reach the Silla of Caracas and the mountains of Brazil. You’d probably argue that most tropical plants would die off, and then after the cold eased, tropical plants would migrate from the non-chilled areas of the world. But that’s impossible unless you somehow connect the tropical regions of the Atlantic—which I can’t accept, even though I wish I could in some ways. Oswald Heer wouldn’t accept such a connection at all. When the Ice Age impacted the Old World, wouldn’t it be pretty reckless to assume that India, the Malay Archipelago, and Australia were frozen while Africa wasn’t? Yet, let’s assume that was the case; let’s ignore the previous strong likelihood of a connection between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean; let’s assume Arabia and Persia were humid enough for tropical plants to travel through. However, if you look at a globe and imagine the cold slowly spreading, with plants in the tropics moving toward the equator, it seems highly unlikely that they could make their way from India to the still warm areas of Africa, as they would need to go west with a slight northern angle around the northern shores of the Indian Ocean. So if Africa was cooled first, there would be significant challenges for African tropical plants to escape into the warm regions of India. Again, you’d need to connect the Indian Ocean quite recently, not along the lines of the Laccadive Archipelago. If you think the cold moved from the southern pole northward, that doesn’t help, unless we assume the countries just north of the northern tropic were warmer at the same time, allowing a clear route from India to Africa, which seems way too complicated and without evidence for me to accept. Therefore, I don’t see how suggesting different strips of the world cooled at different times helps us much. The idea that the entire world cooled at the same time (though maybe not equally, with South America being less affected than the Old World) seems like the simplest explanation and doesn’t add to the conundrum of why all tropical species weren’t wiped out. I still believe some species of each existing tropical genus must have made it through in the hottest or most favorable spots, whether they were dry or damp. Though tropical plants suffered from the temperature drop, they would still be under similar day-length conditions and face nearly the same predators, like insects and other animals, while the incoming temperate plants, although enjoying favorable temperatures, would encounter some new life conditions and many new threats. But I fully acknowledge that this remains a significant challenge. I don’t completely grasp your concern about the unknown cause of such a global temperature shift. We have no clear cause for why continents rise and sink, yet we accept they happen. Can you really believe, looking just at Europe, that the severe cold when massive glaciers covered the plains of Northern Italy was caused solely by shifts in land positions so recently? I can’t. It would take too long to explain, but I think it could be clearly demonstrated that all our continents were roughly in their current positions long before the Ice Age; this seems to contradict the massive geographical changes required to create such a drastic drop in temperature. The Ice Age lasted in Europe and North America while land levels fluctuated by as much as 3,000 feet, which doesn’t suggest that changed land levels caused the Ice Age. But I’ve written an excessively long response. Don’t feel the need to answer extensively; just send me a few words on the topic sometime.

I have had this copied, that it might not bore you too much to read it.

I had this copied so it wouldn't be too boring for you to read.

A few words more. When equatorial productions were dreadfully distressed by fall of temperature, and probably by changed humidity, and changed proportional numbers of other plants and enemies (though they might favour some of the species), I must admit that they all would be exterminated if productions exactly fitted, not only for the climate, but for all the conditions of the equatorial regions during the Glacial period existed and could everywhere have immigrated. But the productions of the temperate regions would have probably found, under the equator, in their new homes and soils, considerably different conditions of humidity and periodicity, and they would have encountered a new set of enemies (a most important consideration); for there seems good reason to believe that animals were not able to migrate nearly to the extent to which plants did during the Glacial period. Hence I can persuade myself that the temperate productions would not entirely replace and exterminate the productions of the cooled tropics, but would become partially mingled with them.

A few more words. When equatorial plants were heavily impacted by drops in temperature, and probably by changes in humidity, along with the shifting balance of other plants and predators (though some might benefit certain species), I have to acknowledge that they would all be wiped out if plants perfectly suited for the climate and all the conditions of the equatorial regions during the Ice Age were able to migrate everywhere. However, the plants from temperate regions would likely find significantly different conditions of humidity and seasonal patterns in their new habitats in the tropics, and they would also face a new group of predators (which is a crucial factor); there seems to be strong evidence that animals weren't able to migrate nearly as much as plants did during the Ice Age. Therefore, I can convince myself that temperate plants would not completely replace and eliminate the plants of the cooler tropics, but would instead mix with them to some extent.

I am far from satisfied with what I have scribbled. I conclude that there must have been a mundane Glacial period, and that the difficulties are much the same whether we suppose it contemporaneous over the world, or that longitudinal belts were affected one after the other. For Heaven's sake forgive me!

I’m really not happy with what I’ve written. I’ve come to the conclusion that there must have been a boring Ice Age, and the challenges are pretty similar whether we think it happened at the same time everywhere or that different regions were affected one after another. For heaven’s sake, please forgive me!

LETTER 353. TO H.W. BATES. March 26th {1861}.

I have been particularly struck by your remarks on the Glacial period. (353/1. In his "Contributions to the Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley," "Trans. Entom. Soc." Volume V., page 335 (read November 24th, 1860), Mr. Bates discusses the migration of species from the equatorial regions after the Glacial period. He arrives at a result which, he points out, "is highly interesting as bearing upon the question of how far extinction is likely to have occurred in equatorial regions during the time of the Glacial epoch."..."The result is plain, that there has always (at least throughout immense geological epochs) been an equatorial fauna rich in endemic species, and that extinction cannot have prevailed to any extent within a period of time so comparatively modern as the Glacial epoch in geology." This conclusion does not support the view expressed in the "Origin of Species" (Edition I., chapter XI., page 378) that the refrigeration of the earth extended to the equatorial regions. (Bates, loc. cit., pages 352, 353.)) You seem to me to have put the case with admirable clearness and with crushing force. I am quite staggered with the blow, and do not know what to think. Of late several facts have turned up leading me to believe more firmly that the Glacial period did affect the equatorial regions; but I can make no answer to your argument, and am completely in a cleft stick. By an odd chance I have only a few days ago been discussing this subject, in relation to plants, with Dr. Hooker, who believes to a certain extent, but strongly urged the little apparent extinction in the equatorial regions. I stated in a letter some days ago to him that the tropics of S. America seem to have suffered less than the Old World. There are many perplexing points; temperate plants seem to have migrated far more than animals. Possibly species may have been formed more rapidly within tropics than one would have expected. I freely confess that you have confounded me; but I cannot yet give up my belief that the Glacial period did to certain extent affect the tropics.

I have been really impressed by your comments on the Glacial period. (353/1. In his "Contributions to the Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley," "Trans. Entom. Soc." Volume V., page 335 (read November 24th, 1860), Mr. Bates talks about the migration of species from the equatorial regions after the Glacial period. He comes to a conclusion which, as he points out, "is highly interesting as bearing upon the question of how far extinction is likely to have occurred in equatorial regions during the time of the Glacial epoch."..."The result is clear that there has always (at least throughout immense geological epochs) been an equatorial fauna rich in endemic species, and that extinction cannot have been widespread during a time as comparatively recent as the Glacial epoch in geology." This conclusion does not support the view in the "Origin of Species" (Edition I., chapter XI., page 378) that the refrigeration of the earth extended to the equatorial regions. (Bates, loc. cit., pages 352, 353.)) You seem to have presented the case with admirable clarity and strong evidence. I am quite taken aback by your argument, and I'm unsure how to respond. Recently, several facts have emerged that lead me to believe more firmly that the Glacial period did impact the equatorial regions; however, I can't counter your argument and feel completely stuck. By a strange coincidence, I was just discussing this subject, regarding plants, with Dr. Hooker, who somewhat believes in this but strongly pointed out the little apparent extinction in the equatorial regions. I mentioned in a letter to him a few days ago that the tropics of South America seem to have suffered less than the Old World. There are many confusing aspects; temperate plants seem to have migrated far more than animals. It’s possible that new species formed more quickly in the tropics than expected. I freely admit that you’ve perplexed me; yet I can’t completely abandon my belief that the Glacial period did have some impact on the tropics.

LETTER 354. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 25th {1862}.

I have almost finished your Arctic paper, and I must tell you how I admire it. (354/1. "Outlines of the Distribution of Arctic Plants" {Read June 21st, 1860}, "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIII., 1862, page 251. The author's remarks on Mr. Darwin's theories of Geographical Distribution are given at page 255: they are written in a characteristically generous spirit.) The subject, treated as you have treated it, is really magnificent. Good Heaven, what labour it must have cost you! And what a grand prospect there is for the future. I need not say how much pleased I am at your notice of my work; for you know that I regard your opinion more than that of all others. Such papers are the real engine to compel people to reflect on modification of species; any one with an enquiring mind could hardly fail to wish to consider the whole subject after reading your paper. By Jove! you will be driven, nolens volens, to a cooled globe. Think of your own case of Abyssinia and Fernando Po, and South Africa, and of your Lebanon case (354/2. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 337.); grant that there are highlands to favour migration, but surely the lowlands must have been somewhat cooled. What a splendid new and original evidence and case is that of Greenland: I cannot see how, even by granting bridges of continuous land, one can understand the existing flora. I should think from the state of Scotland and America, and from isothermals, that during the coldest part of Glacial period, Greenland must have been quite depopulated. Like a dog to his vomit, I cannot help going back and leaning to accidental means of transport by ice and currents. How curious also is the case of Iceland. What a splendid paper you have made of the subject. When we meet I must ask you how much you attribute richness of flora of Lapland to mere climate; it seems to me very marvellous that this point should have been a sort of focus of radiation; if, however, it is unnaturally rich, i.e. contains more species than it ought to do for its latitude, in comparison with the other Arctic regions, would it not thus falsely seem a focus of radiation? But I shall hereafter have to go over and over again your paper; at present I am quite muddy on the subject. How very odd, on any view, the relation of Greenland to the mountains of E. N. America; this looks as if there had been wholesale extinction in E. N. America. But I must not run on. By the way, I find Link in 1820 speculated on relation of Alpine and Arctic plants being due to former colder climate, which he attributed to higher mountains cutting off the warm southern winds.

I've almost finished your Arctic paper, and I have to say how much I admire it. (354/1. "Outlines of the Distribution of Arctic Plants" {Read June 21st, 1860}, "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIII., 1862, page 251. The author's comments on Mr. Darwin's theories of Geographical Distribution are found on page 255: they are written with a characteristically generous spirit.) The way you've handled this topic is truly impressive. Goodness, what effort it must have taken! And what an exciting outlook there is for the future. I don’t need to mention how pleased I am that you acknowledged my work; you know I value your opinion above all others. Papers like this are the real driving force that makes people think about species modification; anyone with a curious mind would certainly want to delve into the entire topic after reading your paper. Good grief! You will be led, willingly or not, to a cooled globe. Think of your own examples with Abyssinia and Fernando Po, and South Africa, as well as your Lebanon example (354/2. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 337.); while it's true that highlands can promote migration, the lowlands must have cooled down somewhat. What a fantastic and original piece of evidence Greenland provides: I struggle to understand how, even allowing for land bridges, the current plant life can be explained. I would think, looking at the conditions in Scotland and America, and considering isothermals, that during the coldest part of the Glacial period, Greenland must have been largely uninhabited. Like a dog returning to its vomit, I can’t help but lean toward the idea of accidental transport by ice and currents. How interesting is the situation with Iceland? You've done an exceptional job on this topic. When we meet, I need to ask you how much you think the richness of Lapland's flora is simply due to climate; it seems astonishing that this area has served as a kind of center for species diversity; if it is indeed unnaturally rich, meaning it has more species than it should for its latitude when compared to other Arctic regions, wouldn’t it appear to be misleadingly similar to a center of species diversity? But I will need to review your paper multiple times; right now, I'm feeling quite confused about the topic. It's so strange, regardless of the perspective, how Greenland relates to the mountains of Eastern North America; this suggests there has been significant extinction in Eastern North America. But I shouldn't keep going on. By the way, I found that Link speculated back in 1820 about the connection between alpine and arctic plants being due to a former cooler climate, which he attributed to mountain ranges blocking warm southern winds.

LETTER 355. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, November 2nd, 1862.

Did I tell you how deeply pleased I was with Gray's notice of my Arctic essay? (355/1. "American Journal of Science and Arts," XXXIV., and in Gray's "Scientific Papers," Volume I., page 122.) It was awfully good of him, for I am sure he must have seen several blunders. He tells me that Dr. Dawson (355/2. A letter (No. 144) by Sir J.D. Hooker, dated November 7th, 1862, on this subject occurs in the Evolutionary section.) is down on me, and I have a very nice lecture on Arctic and Alpine plants from Dr. D., with a critique on the Arctic essay—which he did not see till afterwards. He has found some mares' nests in my essay, and one very venial blunder in the tables—he seems to HATE Darwinism—he accuses me of overlooking the geological facts, and dwells much on my overlooking subsidence of temperate America during Glacial period—and my asserting a subsidence of Arctic America, which never entered into my head. I wish, however, if it would not make your head ache too much, you would just look over my first three pages, and tell me if I have outraged any geological fact or made any oversights. I expounded the whole thing twice to Lyell before I printed it, with map and tables, intending to get (and I thought I had) his imprimatur for all I did and said; but when here three nights ago, I found he was as ignorant of my having written an Arctic essay as could be! And so I suppose he either did not take it in, or thought it of little consequence. Hector approved of it in toto. I need hardly say that I set out on biological grounds, and hold myself as independent of theories of subsidence as you do of the opinions of physicists on heat of globe! I have written a long {letter} to Dawson.

Did I tell you how happy I was with Gray's review of my Arctic essay? (355/1. "American Journal of Science and Arts," XXXIV., and in Gray's "Scientific Papers," Volume I., page 122.) It was really kind of him because I’m sure he must have noticed a few mistakes. He mentioned that Dr. Dawson (355/2. A letter (No. 144) by Sir J.D. Hooker, dated November 7th, 1862, on this subject occurs in the Evolutionary section.) is critical of me, and I received a great lecture on Arctic and Alpine plants from Dr. D., along with a critique of my Arctic essay—though he didn’t see it until later. He found some errors in my essay, including one minor mistake in the tables—he seems to really DISLIKE Darwinism—he accuses me of ignoring geological facts and emphasizes that I overlooked the subsidence of temperate America during the Glacial period—and my claim about the subsidence of Arctic America, which I never considered. I wish, though, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble for you, you could look over my first three pages and let me know if I’ve misrepresented any geological fact or made any mistakes. I explained everything to Lyell twice before I printed it, complete with maps and tables, intending to get (and I thought I had) his approval for everything I said and did; but when I was here three nights ago, I found out he was completely unaware that I had written an Arctic essay! So, I guess he either didn’t pay attention or thought it wasn’t important. Hector approved of it entirely. I should mention that I started from biological grounds and consider myself independent of the theories of subsidence just like you are of physicists' views on the earth's heat! I’ve written a long {letter} to Dawson.

By the way, did you see the "Athenaeum" notice of L. Bonaparte's Basque and Finnish language?—is it not possible that the Basques are Finns left behind after the Glacial period, like the Arctic plants? I have often thought this theory would explain the Mexican and Chinese national affinities. I am plodding away at Welwitschia by night and Genera Plantarum by day. We had a very jolly dinner at the Club on Thursday. We are all well.

By the way, did you see the "Athenaeum" notice about L. Bonaparte's work on Basque and Finnish languages? Could it be that the Basques are Finns who stayed behind after the Ice Age, similar to Arctic plants? I've often thought this idea might explain the connections between Mexico and China. I’m working on Welwitschia at night and Genera Plantarum during the day. We had a really fun dinner at the Club on Thursday. We're all doing well.

LETTER 356. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 4th {1862}.

I have read the pages (356/1. The paper on Arctic plants in Volume XXIII. of the Linnean Society's "Transactions," 1860-62.) attentively (with even very much more admiration than the first time) and cannot imagine what makes Dr. D. accuse you of asserting a subsidence of Arctic America. (356/2. The late Sir J.W. Dawson wrote a review (signed J.W.D) of Hooker's Arctic paper which appeared in the "Canadian Naturalist," 1862, Volume VII., page 334. The chief part of the article is made up of quotations from Asa Gray's article referred to below. The remainder is a summary of geological arguments against Hooker's views. We do not find the accusation referred to above, which seems to have appeared in a lecture.) No doubt there was a subsidence of N. America during the Glacial period, and over a large part, but to maintain that the subsidence extended over nearly the whole breadth of the continent, or lasted during the whole Glacial period, I do not believe he can support. I suspect much of the evidence of subsidence during the Glacial period there will prove false, as it largely rests on ice-action, which is becoming, as you know, to be viewed as more and more subaerial. If Dawson has published criticisms I should like to see them. I have heard he is rabid against me, and no doubt partly in consequence, against anything you write in my favour (and never was anything published more favourable than the Arctic paper). Lyell had difficulty in preventing Dawson reviewing the "Origin" (356/3. Dawson reviewed the "Origin" in the "Canadian Naturalist," 1860.) on hearsay, without having looked at it. No spirit of fairness can be expected from so biassed a judge.

I’ve read the pages (356/1. The paper on Arctic plants in Volume XXIII. of the Linnean Society's "Transactions," 1860-62.) carefully (with even more admiration than the first time) and can't understand why Dr. D. accuses you of claiming that Arctic America is sinking. (356/2. The late Sir J.W. Dawson wrote a review (signed J.W.D) of Hooker's Arctic paper, which was published in the "Canadian Naturalist," 1862, Volume VII., page 334. The main part of the article consists of quotes from Asa Gray's article mentioned below. The rest is a summary of geological arguments against Hooker's views. We don't find the accusation mentioned above, which seems to have come from a lecture.) There’s no doubt that North America experienced some sinking during the Glacial period, and over a large area, but I don't think he can back up the claim that this sinking covered nearly the entire continent or lasted throughout the whole Glacial period. I suspect a lot of the evidence for sinking during the Glacial period will turn out to be incorrect, as it heavily relies on ice action, which is increasingly being seen as more subaerial. If Dawson has published criticisms, I’d like to see them. I’ve heard he’s really hostile towards me, and probably also against anything you write in my defense (and nothing has been published that's more favorable than the Arctic paper). Lyell had a hard time stopping Dawson from reviewing the "Origin" (356/3. Dawson reviewed the "Origin" in the "Canadian Naturalist," 1860.) based only on hearsay, without actually reading it. No sense of fairness can be expected from such a biased judge.

All I can say is that your few first pages have impressed me far more this reading than the first time. Can the Scandinavian portion of the flora be so potent (356/4. Dr. Hooker wrote: "Regarded as a whole the Arctic flora is decidedly Scandinavian; for Arctic Scandinavia, or Lapland, though a very small tract of land, contains by far the richest Arctic flora, amounting to three-fourths of the whole"; he pointed out "that the Scandinavian flora is present in every latitude of the globe, and is the only one that is so" (quoted by Gray, loc. cit. infra).) from having been preserved in that corner, warmed by the Gulf Stream, and from now alone representing the entire circumpolar flora, during the warmer pre-Glacial period? From the first I have not been able to resist the impression (shared by Asa Gray, whose Review (356/5. Asa Gray's "Scientific Papers," Volume I., page 122.) on you pleased me much) that during the Glacial period there must have been almost entire extinction in Greenland; for depth of sea does not favour former southerly extension of land there. (356/6. In the driving southward of the vegetation by the Glacial epoch the Greenland flora would be "driven into the sea, that is, exterminated." (Hooker quoted by Gray, loc. cit. page 124.) I must suspect that plants have been largely introduced by sea currents, which bring so much wood from N. Europe. But here we shall split as wide as the poles asunder. All the world could not persuade me, if it tried, that yours is not a grand essay. I do not quite understand whether it is this essay that Dawson has been "down on." What a curious notion about Glacial climate, and Basques and Finns! Are the Basques mountaineers—I hope so. I am sorry I have not seen the "Athenaeum," but I now take in the "Parthenon." By the way, I have just read with much interest Max Muller (356/7. Probably his "Lectures on the Science of Language," 1861-64.); the last part, about first origin of language, seems the least satisfactory part.

All I can say is that your first few pages have impressed me much more this time than the first reading. Can the Scandinavian part of the plant life be so strong from being preserved in that area, warmed by the Gulf Stream, and now representing the entire circumpolar flora from the warmer pre-Glacial period? From the beginning, I couldn't shake the impression (shared by Asa Gray, whose review on you really pleased me) that during the Glacial period, there must have been almost complete extinction in Greenland; the depth of the sea doesn't support the idea of former southern land extensions there. In the southward movement of vegetation during the Glacial epoch, the Greenland flora would be "driven into the sea, that is, exterminated." I suspect that many plants have been introduced by sea currents, which bring a lot of wood from Northern Europe. But here we might disagree greatly. No one could convince me, no matter how hard they tried, that your work is not a remarkable essay. I don't quite understand whether it's this essay that Dawson has been critical about. What a strange idea about the Glacial climate, and the Basques and Finns! Are the Basques mountaineers? I hope so. I'm sorry I haven't seen the "Athenaeum," but I now subscribe to the "Parthenon." By the way, I just read with great interest Max Muller; the last part, about the first origin of language, seems the least satisfying section.

Pray thank Oliver heartily for his heap of references on poisons. (356/8. Doubtless in connection with Darwin's work on Drosera: he was working at this subject during his stay at Bournemouth in the autumn of 1862.) How the devil does he find them out?

Pray thank Oliver sincerely for his bunch of references on poisons. (356/8. Doubtless related to Darwin's research on Drosera: he was focused on this topic during his time in Bournemouth in the fall of 1862.) How on earth does he discover them?

I must not indulge {myself} with Cypripedium. Asa Gray has made out pretty clearly that, at least in some cases, the act of fertilisation is effected by small insects being forced to crawl in and out of the flower in a particular direction; and perhaps I am quite wrong that it is ever effected by the proboscis.

I shouldn't get carried away with Cypripedium. Asa Gray has shown pretty clearly that, at least in some cases, fertilization occurs when small insects are made to crawl in and out of the flower in a specific direction; and maybe I'm completely wrong that it ever happens through the proboscis.

I retract so far that if you have the rare C. hirsutissimum, I should very much like to examine a cut single flower; for I saw one at a flower show, and as far as I could see, it seemed widely different from other forms.

I take back what I said to the extent that if you have the rare C. hirsutissimum, I would really like to examine a single flower. I saw one at a flower show, and from what I could tell, it looked very different from other types.

P.S.—Answer this, if by chance you can. I remember distinctly having read in some book of travels, I am nearly sure in Australia, an account of the natives, during famines, trying and cooking in all sorts of ways various vegetable productions, and sometimes being injured by them. Can you remember any such account? I want to find it. I thought it was in Sir G. Grey, but it is not. Could it have been in Eyre's book?

P.S.—If you can, please respond to this. I clearly remember reading in some travel book, and I'm pretty sure it was about Australia, a story about the natives who, during famines, experimented with and cooked different types of vegetables, sometimes even getting hurt from them. Do you recall any such story? I'm trying to locate it. I thought it was in Sir G. Grey's book, but it's not. Could it have been in Eyre's book?

LETTER 357. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. {November 1862}.

...I have speculated on the probability of there having been a post-Glacial Arctic-Norwego-Greenland in connection, which would account for the strong fact, that temperate Greenland is as Arctic as Arctic Greenland is—a fact, to me, of astounding force. I do confess, that a northern migration would thus fill Greenland as it is filled, in so far as the whole flora (temperate and Arctic) would be Arctic,—but then the same plants should have gone to the other Polar islands, and above all, so many Scandinavian Arctic plants should not be absent in Greenland, still less should whole Natural Orders be absent, and above all the Arctic Leguminosae. It is difficult (as I have told Dawson) to conceive of the force with which arguments drawn from the absence of certain familiar ubiquitous plants strike the botanists. I would not throw over altogether ice-transport and water-transport, but I cannot realise their giving rise to such anomalies, in the distribution, as Greenland presents. So, too, I have always felt the force of your objection, that Greenland should have been depopulated in the Glacial period, but then reflected that vegetation now ascends I forget how high (about 1,000 feet) in Disco, in 70 deg, and that even in a Glacial ocean there may always have been lurking-places for the few hundred plants Greenland now possesses. Supposing Greenland were repeopled from Scandinavia over ocean way, why should Carices be the chief things brought? Why should there have been no Leguminosae brought, no plants but high Arctic?—why no Caltha palustris, which gilds the marshes of Norway and paints the housetops of Iceland? In short, to my eyes, the trans-oceanic migration would no more make such an assemblage than special creations would account for representative species—and no "ingenious wriggling" ever satisfied me that it would. There, then!

...I have wondered about the possibility of a post-Ice Age Arctic-Norwegian-Greenland connection, which could explain the puzzling fact that temperate Greenland is as Arctic as Arctic Greenland—a fact that astounds me. I admit that a northern migration could explain how Greenland is populated, considering that all its flora (both temperate and Arctic) would be Arctic. However, the same plants should have reached other Polar islands, and especially, many Scandinavian Arctic plants should not be missing in Greenland. It’s even more surprising that entire natural families, particularly the Arctic Leguminosae, are absent. It’s hard (as I have mentioned to Dawson) to appreciate how strongly the arguments regarding the missing common plants impact botanists. I don't completely dismiss ice and water transport, but I can’t see how they could lead to the peculiar distribution we see in Greenland. I have always recognized the strength of your point that Greenland should have been uninhabited during the Ice Age. Still, I considered that vegetation now grows (I forget how high—around 1,000 feet) in Disco at 70 degrees, and that even in a Glacial ocean, there might have been hiding places for the few hundred plants Greenland currently has. If we assume Greenland was repopulated from Scandinavia across the ocean, why are Carex (sedges) the main plants that arrived? Why were no Leguminosae brought, or any plants other than those from high Arctic areas?—and why was there no Caltha palustris, which brightens the marshes of Norway and colors the rooftops of Iceland? In short, I believe that a trans-oceanic migration wouldn't create such a plant mixture any more than special creations would explain representative species—and no clever explanations have ever convinced me otherwise. There you go!

I dined with Henry Christy last night, who was just returned from celt hunting with Lartet, amongst the Basques,—they are Pyreneans. Lubbock was there, and told me that my precious speculation was one of Von Baer's, and that the Finns are supposed to have made the Kjokken moddings. I read Max Muller a year ago—and quite agree, first part is excellent; last, on origin of language, fatuous and feeble as a scientific argument.

I had dinner with Henry Christy last night, who had just come back from hunting celt with Lartet among the Basques—they're from the Pyrenees. Lubbock was there and told me that my brilliant idea was one of Von Baer's, and that the Finns are believed to have made the Kjokken moddings. I read Max Muller a year ago and completely agree; the first part is excellent, but the last part about the origin of language is silly and weak as a scientific argument.

LETTER 358. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 12th {1862}.

I return by this post Dawson's lecture, which seems to me interesting, but with nothing new. I think he must be rather conceited, with his "If Dr. Hooker had known this and that, he would have said so and so." It seems to me absurd in Dawson assuming that North America was under sea during the whole Glacial period. Certainly Greenland is a most curious and difficult problem. But as for the Leguminosae, the case, my dear fellow, is as plain as a pike-staff, as the seeds are so very quickly killed by the sea-water. Seriously, it would be a curious experiment to try vitality in salt water of the plants which ought to be in Greenland. I forget, however, that it would be impossible, I suppose, to get hardly any except the Caltha, and if ever I stumble on that plant in seed I will try it.

I’m sending back Dawson's lecture, which I find interesting, but it doesn’t present anything new. He comes off as a bit full of himself with statements like, "If Dr. Hooker had known this and that, he would have said so and so." I find it ridiculous that Dawson assumes North America was underwater for the entire Glacial period. Sure, Greenland is a really puzzling and complex issue. But when it comes to the Leguminosae, my friend, it’s pretty obvious, since their seeds are killed pretty quickly by seawater. Honestly, it would be an interesting experiment to test the vitality of the plants that should be found in Greenland when exposed to salt water. I do realize, though, that it would be nearly impossible to find any besides the Caltha, but if I ever come across that plant's seeds, I will definitely give it a try.

I wish to Heaven some one would examine the rocks near sea-level at the south point of Greenland, and see if they are well scored; that would tell something. But then subsidence might have brought down higher rocks to present sea-level. I am much more willing to admit your Norwego-Greenland connecting land than most other cases, from the nature of the rocks in Spitzbergen and Bear Island. You have broached and thrown a lot of light on a splendid problem, which some day will be solved. It rejoices me to think that, when a boy, I was shown an erratic boulder in Shrewsbury, and was told by a clever old gentleman that till the world's end no one would ever guess how it came there.

I really hope someone will study the rocks near sea level at the south point of Greenland and see if they show clear signs of glaciation; that would provide useful information. However, it's possible that sinking could have caused higher rocks to fall to the current sea level. I’m more inclined to accept your idea of a land connection between Norway and Greenland than most other theories, given the types of rocks found in Spitzbergen and Bear Island. You've opened up a fascinating discussion and shed a lot of light on a remarkable problem that will eventually be solved. It makes me happy to remember that as a kid, I saw an erratic boulder in Shrewsbury, and a wise old man told me that no one would ever figure out how it got there until the end of time.

It makes me laugh to think of Dr. Dawson's indignation at your sentence about "obliquity of vision." (358/1. See Letter 144.) By Jove, he will try and pitch into you some day. Good night for the present.

It cracks me up to think about Dr. Dawson's outrage over your comment about "obliquity of vision." (358/1. See Letter 144.) Seriously, he's going to try to confront you someday. Good night for now.

To return for a moment to the Glacial period. You might have asked Dawson whether ibex, marmot, etc., etc., were carried from mountain to mountain in Europe on floating ice; and whether musk ox got to England on icebergs? Yet England has subsided, if we trust to the good evidence of shells alone, more during Glacial period than America is known to have done.

To go back for a moment to the Glacial period. You might have wondered if Dawson had asked whether ibex, marmots, and so on were transported from mountain to mountain in Europe on floating ice; and whether musk oxen reached England on icebergs? Still, England has sunk, if we rely on the strong evidence from shells alone, more during the Glacial period than America is known to have done.

For Heaven's sake instil a word of caution into Tyndall's ears. I saw an extract that valleys of Switzerland were wholly due to glaciers. He cannot have reflected on valleys in tropical countries. The grandest valleys I ever saw were in Tahiti. Again, if I understand, he supposes that glaciers wear down whole mountain ranges; thus lower their height, decrease the temperature, and decrease the glaciers themselves. Does he suppose the whole of Scotland thus worn down? Surely he must forget oscillation of level would be more potent one way or another during such enormous lapses of time. It would be hard to believe any mountain range has been so long stationary.

For heaven's sake, please give Tyndall a heads-up. I saw a claim that the valleys of Switzerland are entirely formed by glaciers. He must not have thought about valleys in tropical areas. The most stunning valleys I've ever seen were in Tahiti. Plus, if I understand correctly, he thinks glaciers wear down entire mountain ranges, lowering their height, cooling the temperature, and reducing the glaciers themselves. Does he really think Scotland has been worn down like that? Surely he must forget that the shifting of land levels would be a more influential factor over such vast periods of time. It’s hard to believe any mountain range has been completely still for that long.

I suppose Lyell's book will soon be out. (358/2. "The Antiquity of Man," 1863.) I was very glad to see in a newspaper that Murray sold 4,000. What a sale!

I guess Lyell's book will be out soon. (358/2. "The Antiquity of Man," 1863.) I was really happy to see in a newspaper that Murray sold 4,000 copies. What a sale!

I am now working on cultivated plants, and rather like my work; but I am horribly afraid I make the rashest remarks on value of differences. I trust to a sort of instinct, and, God knows, can seldom give any reason for my remarks. Lord, in what a medley the origin of cultivated plants is. I have been reading on strawberries, and I can find hardly two botanists agree what are the wild forms; but I pick out of horticultural books here and there queer cases of variation, inheritance, etc., etc.

I’m currently studying cultivated plants, and I actually enjoy my work; however, I’m really worried that I make the most reckless comments about the significance of differences. I rely on a kind of instinct and, honestly, I can rarely explain my opinions. It’s amazing how mixed up the origins of cultivated plants are. I've been reading about strawberries, and I can hardly find two botanists who agree on what the wild forms are; yet, I come across strange examples of variation and inheritance in various horticultural books.

What a long letter I have scribbled; but you must forgive me, for it is a great pleasure thus talking to you.

What a long letter I've written; but you have to forgive me, because it's such a joy to talk to you like this.

Did you ever hear of "Condy's Ozonised Water"? I have been trying it with, I think, extraordinary advantage—to comfort, at least. A teaspoon, in water, three or four times a day. If you meet any poor dyspeptic devil like me, suggest it.

Did you ever hear of "Condy's Ozonised Water"? I've been trying it, and I think it's really helped—at least in terms of comfort. Just a teaspoon in water, three or four times a day. If you come across any poor soul with dyspepsia like me, suggest it.

LETTER 359. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 26th {March 1863}.

LETTER 359. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 26, 1863.

I hope and think you are too severe on Lyell's early chapters. Though so condensed, and not well arranged, they seemed to me to convey with uncommon force the antiquity of man, and that was his object. (359/1. "The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man": London, 1863.) It did not occur to me, but I fear there is some truth in your criticism, that nothing is to be trusted until he {Lyell} had observed it.

I hope you reconsider your judgment on Lyell's early chapters. Even though they are quite condensed and not very well organized, I found they powerfully convey the idea of human antiquity, which was his main goal. (359/1. "The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man": London, 1863.) I didn’t think about it before, but I worry there might be some truth to your point that nothing can be trusted until he {Lyell} had actually observed it.

I am glad to see you stirred up about tropical plants during Glacial period.

I’m happy to see you excited about tropical plants during the Ice Age.

Remember that I have many times sworn to you that they coexisted; so, my dear fellow, you must make them coexist. I do not think that greater coolness in a disturbed condition of things would be required than the zone of the Himalaya, in which you describe some tropical and temperate forms commingling (359/2. "During this {the Glacial period}, the coldest point, the lowlands under the equator, must have been clothed with a mingled tropical and temperate vegetation, like that described by Hooker as growing luxuriantly at the height of from four to five thousand feet on the lower slopes of the Himalaya, but with perhaps a still greater preponderance of temperate forms" ("Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 338).); and as in the lower part of the Cameroons, and as Seemann describes, in low mountains of Panama. It is, as you say, absurd to suppose that such a genus as Dipterocarpus (359/3. Dipterocarpus, a genus of the Dipterocarpaceae, a family of dicotyledonous plants restricted to the tropics of the Old World.) could have been developed since the Glacial era; but do you feel so sure, as to oppose (359/4. The meaning seems to be: "Do you feel so sure that you can bring in opposition a large body of considerations to show, etc.") a large body of considerations on the other side, that this genus could not have been slowly accustomed to a cooler climate? I see Lindley says it has not been brought to England, and so could not have been tried in the greenhouse. Have you materials to show to what little height it ever ascends the mountains of Java or Sumatra? It makes a mighty difference, the whole area being cooled; and the area perhaps not being in all respects, such as dampness, etc., etc., fitted for such temperate plants as could get in. But, anyhow, I am ready to swear again that Dipterocarpus and any other genus you like to name did survive during a cooler period.

Remember that I've often sworn to you that they coexisted; so, my dear friend, you need to make them coexist. I don’t think that greater coolness than that found in the Himalayas, where you describe tropical and temperate forms mixing, would be necessary. During the Glacial period, when it was the coldest, the lowlands near the equator must have been covered with a mix of tropical and temperate vegetation, similar to what Hooker described growing abundantly at four to five thousand feet on the lower slopes of the Himalayas, but probably with an even greater dominance of temperate forms; and also in the lower part of the Cameroons, and as Seemann describes in the low mountains of Panama. It’s, as you say, ridiculous to think that a genus like Dipterocarpus could have developed since the Glacial era; but are you really so confident that you can present a lot of arguments to oppose the idea that this genus might have slowly adapted to a cooler climate? I see Lindley mentions it hasn’t been taken to England, so it couldn’t have been tested in a greenhouse. Do you have any information on how high it typically grows in the mountains of Java or Sumatra? The entire area being cooled makes a big difference, and perhaps that area isn’t really suitable in all respects, like humidity, for temperate plants to thrive. But anyway, I’m ready to swear again that Dipterocarpus and any other genus you want to name did survive during a cooler period.

About reversion you express just what I mean. I somehow blundered, and mentally took literally that the child inherited from his grandfather. This view of latency collates a lot of facts—secondary sexual characters in each individual; tendency of latent character to appear temporarily in youth; effect of crossing in educing talent, character, etc. When one thinks of a latent character being handed down, hidden for a thousand or ten thousand generations, and then suddenly appearing, one is quite bewildered at the host of characters written in invisible ink on the germ. I have no evidence of the reversion of all characters in a variety. I quite agree to what you say about genius. I told Lyell that passage made me groan.

About reversion, you express exactly what I mean. I somehow messed up and mentally took it literally that the child inherited traits from his grandfather. This idea of latency connects a lot of facts—secondary sexual characteristics in each individual; the tendency for latent traits to appear temporarily in youth; the effect of crossing in bringing out talent, character, and so on. When you think of a latent trait being passed down, hidden for a thousand or ten thousand generations, and then suddenly coming to light, it's quite overwhelming to consider the multitude of traits written in invisible ink on the germ. I have no evidence of the reversion of all traits in a variety. I completely agree with you about genius. I told Lyell that passage made me groan.

What a pity about Falconer! (359/5. This refers to Falconer's claim of priority against Lyell. See "Life and Letters," III., page 14; also Letters 166 and 168.) How singular and how lamentable!

What a shame about Falconer! (359/5. This refers to Falconer's claim of priority against Lyell. See "Life and Letters," III., page 14; also Letters 166 and 168.) How strange and how unfortunate!

Remember orchid pods. I have a passion to grow the seeds (and other motives). I have not a fact to go on, but have a notion (no, I have a firm conviction!) that they are parasitic in early youth on cryptogams! (359/6. In an article on British Epiphytal Orchids ("Gard. Chron." 1884, page 144) Malaxis paludosa is described by F.W. Burbidge as being a true epiphyte on the stems of Sphagnum. Stahl states that the difficulty of cultivating orchids largely depends on their dependence on a mycorhizal fungus,—though he does not apply his view to germination. See Pringsheim's "Jahrbucher," XXXIV., page 581. We are indebted to Sir Joseph Hooker for the reference to Burbidge's paper.) Here is a fool's notion. I have some planted on Sphagnum. Do any tropical lichens or mosses, or European, withstand heat, or grow on any trees in hothouse at Kew? If so, for love of Heaven, favour my madness, and have some scraped off and sent me.

Remember orchid pods. I'm really passionate about growing the seeds (and other things too). I don't have solid proof, but I'm convinced that they are parasitic in their early stages on cryptogams! (359/6. In an article on British Epiphytal Orchids ("Gard. Chron." 1884, page 144), Malaxis paludosa is described by F.W. Burbidge as a true epiphyte on the stems of Sphagnum. Stahl mentions that the challenge of cultivating orchids largely comes from their reliance on a mycorrhizal fungus—although he doesn't connect this idea to germination. See Pringsheim's "Jahrbucher," XXXIV., page 581. We're grateful to Sir Joseph Hooker for mentioning Burbidge's paper.) Here’s a silly thought. I have some planted on Sphagnum. Do any tropical lichens or mosses, or even European ones, survive heat, or grow on any trees in the hothouse at Kew? If they do, for heaven's sake, help me out and scrape some off to send me.

I am like a gambler, and love a wild experiment. It gives me great pleasure to fancy that I see radicles of orchid seed penetrating the Sphagnum. I know I shall not, and therefore shall not be disappointed.

I’m like a gambler and love a wild experiment. It gives me great pleasure to imagine that I see bits of orchid seed pushing through the Sphagnum. I know I won’t, so I won’t be disappointed.

LETTER 360. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {September 26th 1863}.

...About New Zealand, at last I am coming round, and admit it must have been connected with some terra firma, but I will die rather than admit Australia. How I wish mountains of New Caledonia were well worked!...

...About New Zealand, I’m finally coming around and admitting it must be connected to some solid ground, but I’d rather die than say it’s Australia. How I wish the mountains of New Caledonia were well-explored!...

LETTER 361. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(361/1. In the earlier part of this letter Mr. Darwin refers to a review on Planchon in the "Nat. History Review," April 1865. There can be no doubt, therefore, that "Thomson's article" must be the review of Jordan's "Diagnoses d'especes nouvelles ou meconnues," etc., in the same number, page 226. It deals with "lumpers" and "splitters," and a possible trinomial nomenclature.)

(361/1. In the earlier part of this letter, Mr. Darwin mentions a review of Planchon in the "Nat. History Review," April 1865. There's no doubt that "Thomson's article" refers to the review of Jordan's "Diagnoses d'especes nouvelles ou meconnues," etc., in the same issue, page 226. It discusses "lumpers" and "splitters," as well as a potential trinomial nomenclature.)

April 17th {1865}.

April 17, 1865.

I have been very much struck by Thomson's article; it seems to me quite remarkable for its judgment, force, and clearness. It has interested me greatly. I have sometimes loosely speculated on what nomenclature would come to, and concluded that it would be trinomial. What a name a plant will formally bear with the author's name after genus (as some recommend), and after species and subspecies! It really seems one of the greatest questions which can be discussed for systematic Natural History. How impartially Thomson adjusts the claims of "hair-splitters" and "lumpers"! I sincerely hope he will pretty often write reviews or essays. It is an old subject of grief to me, formerly in Geology and of late in Zoology and Botany, that the very best men (excepting those who have to write principles and elements, etc.) read so little, and give up nearly their whole time to original work. I have often thought that science would progress more if there was more reading. How few read any long and laborious papers! The only use of publishing such seems to be as a proof that the author has given time and labour to his work.

I was really impressed by Thomson's article; it seems quite remarkable for its insight, strength, and clarity. I've found it very engaging. I've occasionally thought about what naming conventions would become and concluded that it would be trinomial. Imagine the name a plant would officially have, including the author's name after the genus (as some suggest), and after the species and subspecies! It really feels like one of the biggest questions that can be discussed in systematic Natural History. How fairly Thomson balances the views of "hair-splitters" and "lumpers"! I truly hope he writes reviews or essays regularly. It's always been a source of frustration for me, first in Geology and more recently in Zoology and Botany, that the very best scholars (except for those who need to write basics and fundamentals, etc.) read so little and devote almost all their time to original research. I've often thought that science would advance more if there was more reading. How few people actually read any lengthy and detailed papers! The only purpose of publishing such seems to be as proof that the author has invested time and effort into their work.

LETTER 362. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 22nd and 28th, 1865.

As for the anthropologists being a bete noire to scientific men, I am not surprised, for I have just skimmed through the last "Anthrop. Journal," and it shows, especially the long attack on the British Association, a curious spirit of insolence, conceit, dullness, and vulgarity. I have read with uncommon interest Travers' short paper on the Chatham Islands. (362/1. See Travers, H.H., "Notes on the Chatham Islands," "Linn. Soc. Journ." IX., October 1865. Mr. Travers says he picked up a seed of Edwardsia, evidently washed ashore. The stranded logs indicated a current from New Zealand.) I remember your pitching into me with terrible ferocity because I said I thought the seed of Edwardsia might have been floated from Chili to New Zealand: now what do you say, my young man, to the three young trees of the same size on one spot alone of the island, and with the cast-up pod on the shore? If it were not for those unlucky wingless birds I could believe that the group had been colonised by accidental means; but, as it is, it appears by far to me the best evidence of continental extension ever observed. The distance, I see, is 360 miles. I wish I knew whether the sea was deeper than between New Zealand and Australia. I fear you will not admit such a small accident as the wingless birds having been transported on icebergs. Do suggest, if you have a chance, to any one visiting the Islands again, to look out for erratic boulders there. How curious his statement is about the fruit-trees and bees! (362/2. "Since the importation of bees, European fruit-trees and bushes have produced freely." Travers, "Linn. Soc. Journal," IX., page 144.) I wish I knew whether the clover had spread before the bees were introduced...

As for anthropologists being a major annoyance to scientists, I’m not surprised. I just skimmed through the latest "Anthrop. Journal," and it shows, especially in the lengthy criticism of the British Association, a strange mix of arrogance, self-importance, dullness, and crudeness. I found Travers' brief paper on the Chatham Islands particularly interesting. (362/1. See Travers, H.H., "Notes on the Chatham Islands," "Linn. Soc. Journ." IX., October 1865. Mr. Travers mentions finding a seed of Edwardsia that clearly washed ashore. The stranded logs suggest a current from New Zealand.) I remember how fiercely you challenged me because I suggested that the seed of Edwardsia might have floated from Chile to New Zealand; now what do you say, my young friend, about the three young trees of the same size in one area of the island, along with the pod found on the shore? If it weren't for those unfortunate flightless birds, I could believe that the group was accidentally colonized; but as it stands, it seems to me to provide the strongest evidence of continental extension ever noted. The distance, I see, is 360 miles. I wish I knew whether the sea is deeper than the stretch between New Zealand and Australia. I doubt you’ll accept such a minor incident as the wingless birds being carried on icebergs. Please suggest to anyone visiting the Islands again to look for erratic boulders. How interesting his comment about the fruit trees and bees is! (362/2. "Since the importation of bees, European fruit trees and bushes have produced freely." Travers, "Linn. Soc. Journal," IX., page 144.) I wish I knew whether the clover had spread before the bees were brought in...

I saw in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" the sentence about the "Origin" dying in Germany, but did not know it was by Seemann.

I saw in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" the statement about the "Origin" dying in Germany, but I didn't realize it was by Seemann.

LETTER 363. TO C. LYELL. Down, February 7th {1866}.

I am very much obliged for your note and the extract, which have interested me extremely. I cannot disbelieve for a moment Agassiz on Glacial action after all his experience, as you say, and after that capital book with plates which he early published (363/1. "Etudes sur les Glaciers"; Neuchatel, 1840.); as for his inferences and reasoning on the valley of the Amazon that is quite another question, nor can he have seen all the regions to which Mrs. A. alludes. (363/2. A letter from Mrs. Agassiz to Lady Lyell, which had been forwarded to Mr. Darwin. The same letter was sent also to Sir Charles Bunbury, who, in writing to Lyell on February 3rd, 1866, criticises some of the statements. He speaks of Agassiz's observations on glacial phenomena in Brazil as "very astonishing indeed; so astonishing that I have very great difficulty in believing them. They shake my faith in the glacial system altogether; or perhaps they ought rather to shake the faith in Agassiz...If Brazil was ever covered with glaciers, I can see no reason why the whole earth should not have been so. Perhaps the whole terrestrial globe was once 'one entire and perfect icicle.'" (From the privately printed "Life" of Sir Charles Bunbury, edited by Lady Bunbury, Volume ii., page 334).) Her letter is not very clear to me, and I do not understand what she means by "to a height of more than three thousand feet." There are no erratic boulders (to which I particularly attended ) in the low country round Rio. It is possible or even probable that this area may have subsided, for I could detect no evidence of elevation, or any Tertiary formations or volcanic action. The Organ Mountains are from six to seven thousand feet in height; and I am only a little surprised at their bearing the marks of glacial action. For some temperate genera of plants, viz., Vaccinium, Andromeda, Gaultheria, Hypericum, Drosera, Habenaria, inhabit these mountains, and I look at this almost as good evidence of a cold period, as glacial action. That there are not more temperate plants can be accounted for by the isolated position of these mountains. There are no erratic boulders on the Pacific coast north of Chiloe, and but few glaciers in the Cordillera, but it by no means follows, I think, that there may not have been formerly gigantic glaciers on the eastern and more humid side.

I'm really grateful for your note and the excerpt, which I found extremely fascinating. I can't doubt Agassiz on glacial action for a moment, considering all his experience and that brilliant book with illustrations he published early on (363/1. "Etudes sur les Glaciers"; Neuchatel, 1840.). His conclusions and reasoning about the Amazon valley are another matter entirely, and it's likely he hasn't seen all the areas Mrs. A. mentions. (363/2. A letter from Mrs. Agassiz to Lady Lyell, which was forwarded to Mr. Darwin. The same letter was sent to Sir Charles Bunbury, who, in writing to Lyell on February 3rd, 1866, critiques some of the statements. He describes Agassiz's observations on glacial phenomena in Brazil as "very astonishing indeed; so astonishing that I have very great difficulty in believing them. They shake my faith in the glacial system altogether; or perhaps they should rather shake the faith in Agassiz...If Brazil was ever covered with glaciers, I can't see any reason why the whole earth shouldn't have been too. Maybe the entire globe was once 'one entire and perfect icicle.'" (From the privately printed "Life" of Sir Charles Bunbury, edited by Lady Bunbury, Volume ii., page 334).) Her letter isn't very clear to me, and I don't understand what she means by "to a height of more than three thousand feet." There are no erratic boulders (which I paid particular attention to) in the lowlands around Rio. It's possible—even likely—that this area may have sunk, as I saw no signs of elevation, any Tertiary formations, or volcanic activity. The Organ Mountains rise to six or seven thousand feet, and I'm only slightly surprised they show signs of glacial action. Some temperate plant genera, like Vaccinium, Andromeda, Gaultheria, Hypericum, Drosera, and Habenaria, grow on these mountains, and I consider this almost as strong evidence of a cold period as glacial action. The lack of more temperate plants can be explained by the isolated nature of these mountains. There are no erratic boulders on the Pacific coast north of Chiloe, and very few glaciers in the Cordillera, but I don’t believe that means there couldn’t have been massive glaciers on the eastern and wetter side in the past.

In the third edition of "Origin," page 403 (363/3. "Origin," Edition VI., page 335, 1882. "Mr. D. Forbes informs me that he found in various parts of the Cordillera, from lat. 13 deg W. to 30 deg S., at about the height of twelve thousand feet, deeply furrowed rocks...and likewise great masses of detritus, including grooved pebbles. Along this whole space of the Cordillera true glaciers do not now exist, even at much more considerable height. "), you will find a brief allusion, on authority of Mr. D. Forbes, on the former much lower extension of glaciers in the equatorial Cordillera. Pray also look at page 407 at what I say on the nature of tropical vegetation (which I could now much improve) during the Glacial period. (363/4. "During this, the coldest period, the lowlands under the Equator must have been clothed with a mingled tropical and temperate vegetation..." ("Origin," Edition VI., 1882, page 338).)

In the third edition of "Origin," page 403 (363/3. "Origin," Edition VI., page 335, 1882. "Mr. D. Forbes tells me that he found in different areas of the Cordillera, from lat. 13 deg W. to 30 deg S., at about twelve thousand feet high, deeply grooved rocks...and also large amounts of debris, including grooved pebbles. Throughout this entire region of the Cordillera, true glaciers no longer exist, even at much higher elevations."), you will find a short reference, based on Mr. D. Forbes's authority, regarding the previous much lower extent of glaciers in the equatorial Cordillera. Also, please check page 407 for my thoughts on the nature of tropical vegetation (which I could now significantly enhance) during the Glacial period. (363/4. "During this, the coldest period, the lowlands near the Equator must have been covered with a mix of tropical and temperate vegetation..." ("Origin," Edition VI., 1882, page 338).)

I feel a strong conviction that soon every one will believe that the whole world was cooler during the Glacial period. Remember Hooker's wonderful case recently discovered of the identity of so many temperate plants on the summit of Fernando Po, and on the mountains of Abyssinia. (363/5. "Dr. Hooker has also lately shown that several of the plants living in the upper parts of the lofty island of Fernando Po, and in the neighbouring Cameroon Mountains, in the Gulf of Guinea, are closely related to those on the mountains of Abyssinia, and likewise to those of temperate Europe" (loc. cit., page 337).) I look at {it} as certain that these plants crossed the whole of Africa from east to west during the same period. I wish I had published a long chapter written in full, and almost ready for the press, on this subject, which I wrote ten years ago. It was impossible in the "Origin" to give a fair abstract.

I strongly believe that soon everyone will accept that the entire world was cooler during the Ice Age. Think about Hooker's amazing discovery of how many temperate plants are found on the summit of Fernando Po, and in the mountains of Abyssinia. (363/5. "Dr. Hooker has also recently demonstrated that several of the plants found in the upper parts of the lofty island of Fernando Po, and in the nearby Cameroon Mountains, in the Gulf of Guinea, are closely related to those on the mountains of Abyssinia, as well as to those of temperate Europe" (loc. cit., page 337).) I see it as certain that these plants spread across Africa from east to west during the same period. I wish I had published a detailed chapter on this topic, which I wrote ten years ago and was almost ready for printing. It was impossible to provide a fair summary in the "Origin."

My health is considerably improved, so that I am able to work nearly two hours a day, and so make some little progress with my everlasting book on domestic varieties. You will have heard of my sister Catherine's easy death last Friday morning. (363/6. Catherine Darwin died in February 1866.) She suffered much, and we all look at her death as a blessing, for there was much fear of prolonged and greater suffering. We are uneasy about Susan, but she has hitherto borne it better than we could have hoped. (363/7. Susan Darwin died in October 1866.)

My health has greatly improved, so I can work nearly two hours a day, which allows me to make some progress on my never-ending book about domestic varieties. You have probably heard about my sister Catherine's peaceful passing last Friday morning. (363/6. Catherine Darwin died in February 1866.) She endured a lot, and we all see her death as a blessing, as there was much worry about extended and greater suffering. We are concerned about Susan, but she has managed to cope better than we expected. (363/7. Susan Darwin died in October 1866.)

Remember glacial action of Lebanon when you speak of no glacial action in S. on Himalaya, and in S.E. Australia.

Remember the glacial activity in Lebanon when you discuss the lack of glacial action in the Himalayas and in Southeast Australia.

P.S.—I have been very glad to see Sir C. Bunbury's letter. (363/8. The letter from Bunbury to Lyell, already quoted on this subject. Bunbury writes: "There is nothing in the least NORTHERN, nothing that is not characteristically Brazilian, in the flora of the Organ Mountains.") If the genera which I name from Gardner (363/9. "Travels in the Interior of Brazil," by G. Gardner: London, 1846.) are not considered by him as usually temperate forms, I am, of course, silenced; but Hooker looked over the MS. chapter some ten years ago and did not score out my remarks on them, and he is generally ready enough to pitch into my ignorance and snub me, as I often deserve. My wonder was how any, ever so few, temperate forms reached the mountains of Brazil; and I supposed they travelled by the rather high land and ranges (name forgotten) which stretch from the Cordillera towards Brazil. Cordillera genera of plants have also, somehow, reached the Silla of Caracas. When I think of the vegetation of New Zealand and west coast of South America, where glaciers now descend to or very near to the sea, I feel it rash to conclude that all tropical forms would be destroyed by a considerably cooler period under the Equator.

P.S.—I was really pleased to see Sir C. Bunbury's letter. (363/8. The letter from Bunbury to Lyell, previously mentioned on this topic. Bunbury writes: "There is nothing at all NORTHERN, nothing that isn't distinctly Brazilian, in the flora of the Organ Mountains.") If the plant groups I mention from Gardner (363/9. "Travels in the Interior of Brazil," by G. Gardner: London, 1846.) are not considered by him as typically temperate species, then I have no argument; but Hooker reviewed the manuscript chapter about ten years ago and didn’t cross out my comments on them, and he usually isn't shy about pointing out my mistakes and calling me out, which I often deserve. I was curious how even a small number of temperate species made it to the mountains of Brazil; I thought they traveled through the higher lands and ranges (name forgotten) that stretch from the Cordillera into Brazil. Plants from the Cordillera have also somehow made it to the Silla of Caracas. When I consider the vegetation of New Zealand and the west coast of South America, where glaciers now reach or come very close to the sea, I think it's rash to assume that all tropical species would be wiped out by a significantly cooler period near the Equator.

LETTER 364. TO C. LYELL. Down, Thursday, February 15th {1866}.

Many thanks for Hooker's letter; it is a real pleasure to me to read his letters; they are always written with such spirit. I quite agree that Agassiz could never mistake weathered blocks and glacial action; though the mistake has, I know, been made in two or three quarters of the world. I have often fought with Hooker about the physicists putting their veto on the world having been cooler; it seems to me as irrational as if, when geologists first brought forward some evidence of elevation and subsidence, a former Hooker had declared that this could not possibly be admitted until geologists could explain what made the earth rise and fall. It seems that I erred greatly about some of the plants on the Organ Mountains. (364/1. "On the Organ Mountains of Brazil some few temperate European, some Antarctic, and some Andean genera were found by Gardner, which did not exist in the low intervening hot countries" ("Origin," Edition VI., page 336).) But I am very glad to hear about Fuchsia, etc. I cannot make out what Hooker does believe; he seems to admit the former cooler climate, and almost in the same breath to spurn the idea. To retort Hooker's words, "it is inexplicable to me" how he can compare the transport of seeds from the Andes to the Organ Mountains with that from a continent to an island. Not to mention the much greater distance, there are no currents of water from one to the other; and what on earth should make a bird fly that distance without resting many times? I do not at all suppose that nearly all tropical forms were exterminated during the cool period; but in somewhat depopulated areas, into which there could be no migration, probably many closely allied species will have been formed since this period. Hooker's paper in the "Natural History Review" (364/2. Possibly an unsigned article, entitled "New Colonial Floras" (a review of Grisebach's "Flora of the British West Indian Islands" and Thwaites' "Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae").—"Nat. Hist. Review," January 1865, page 46. See Letter 184.) is well worth studying; but I cannot remember that he gives good grounds for his conviction that certain orders of plants could not withstand a rather cooler climate, even if it came on most gradually. We have only just learnt under how cool a temperature several tropical orchids can flourish. I clearly saw Hooker's difficulty about the preservation of tropical forms during the cool period, and tried my best to retain one spot after another as a hothouse for their preservation; but it would not hold good, and it was a mere piece of truckling on my part when I suggested that longitudinal belts of the world were cooled one after the other. I shall very much like to see Agassiz's letter, whenever you receive one. I have written a long letter; but a squabble with or about Hooker always does me a world of good, and we have been at it many a long year. I cannot understand whether he attacks me as a wriggler or a hammerer, but I am very sure that a deal of wriggling has to be done.

Many thanks for Hooker's letter; I really enjoy reading his letters; they are always written with such energy. I completely agree that Agassiz could never confuse weathered rocks and glacial activity; even though I know that mistake has been made in a couple of places around the world. I've often butted heads with Hooker about the physicists blocking the idea that the world could have been cooler; it seems as unreasonable as if, when geologists first presented evidence of elevation and subsidence, a past Hooker had claimed it couldn't be accepted until geologists explained what caused the earth to rise and fall. I realize I've greatly misjudged some of the plants on the Organ Mountains. (364/1. "On the Organ Mountains of Brazil some few temperate European, some Antarctic, and some Andean genera were found by Gardner, which did not exist in the low intervening hot countries" ("Origin," Edition VI., page 336).) But I'm really glad to hear about Fuchsia, etc. I'm not sure what Hooker truly believes; he seems to accept the idea of a former cooler climate and, almost immediately, dismiss it. To turn Hooker's own words back on him, "it is inexplicable to me" how he can compare the transport of seeds from the Andes to the Organ Mountains with that from a continent to an island. Not to mention the much greater distance, there are no water currents connecting the two; and what on earth would make a bird fly that distance without resting many times? I don’t think that nearly all tropical species were wiped out during the cool period; however, in somewhat depopulated areas where migration wasn't possible, many closely related species likely formed since that time. Hooker's paper in the "Natural History Review" (364/2. Possibly an unsigned article, entitled "New Colonial Floras" (a review of Grisebach's "Flora of the British West Indian Islands" and Thwaites' "Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae").—"Nat. Hist. Review," January 1865, page 46. See Letter 184.) is definitely worth studying; but I don't recall him providing solid grounds for his belief that certain plant orders couldn't survive a rather cooler climate, even if it gradually occurred. We've only just learned how cool a temperature some tropical orchids can thrive in. I clearly understood Hooker's concern about the survival of tropical forms during the cooler period, and I did my best to keep one spot after another as a greenhouse for their preservation; but it didn't hold true, and it was just flattery on my part when I suggested that longitudinal belts of the world cooled one after the other. I would really like to see Agassiz's letter whenever you get one. I've written a long letter; but a argument with or about Hooker always does me a world of good, and we've been at it for many years. I can't tell if he attacks me as someone who avoids confrontation or someone who pounds away, but I’m very sure that a lot of squirming needs to be done.

LETTER 365. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 30th {1866}.

Many thanks about the lupin. Your letter has interested me extremely, and reminds me of old times. I suppose, by your writing, you would like to hear my notions. I cannot admit the Atlantis connecting Madeira and Canary Islands without the strongest evidence, and all on that side (365/1. Sir J.D. Hooker lectured on "Insular Floras" at the Nottingham meeting of the British Association on August 27th, 1866. His lecture is given in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1867, page 6. No doubt he was at this time preparing his remarks on continental extension, which take the form of a judicial statement, giving the arguments and difficulties on both sides. He sums up against continental extension, which, he says, accounts for everything and explains nothing; "whilst the hypothesis of trans-oceanic migration, though it leaves a multitude of facts unexplained, offers a rational solution of many of the most puzzling phenomena." In his lecture, Sir Joseph wrote that in ascending the mountains in Madeira there is but little replacement of lowland species by those of a higher northern latitude. "Plants become fewer and fewer as we ascend, and their places are not taken by boreal ones, or by but very few."): the depth is so great; there is nothing geologically in the islands favouring the belief; there are no endemic mammals or batrachians. Did not Bunbury show that some Orders of plants were singularly deficient? But I rely chiefly on the large amount of specific distinction in the insects and land-shells of P. Santo and Madeira: surely Canary and Madeira could not have been connected, if Madeira and P. Santo had long been distinct. If you admit Atlantis, I think you are bound to admit or explain the difficulties.

Thanks a lot for the lupin. Your letter really interested me and brought back memories of the old days. From your writing, I gather you want to hear my thoughts. I can’t accept the idea of Atlantis linking Madeira and the Canary Islands without solid proof, especially considering the depth involved; there’s nothing geologically in the islands that supports this belief; there are no unique mammals or amphibians. Didn’t Bunbury point out that some plant orders are notably lacking? But mainly, I focus on the significant differences in the specific species of insects and land shells between P. Santo and Madeira: surely Canary and Madeira couldn’t have been connected if Madeira and P. Santo had been separate for a long time. If you accept Atlantis, I think you have to address or explain the challenges.

With respect to cold temperate plants in Madeira, I, of course, know not enough to form an opinion; but, admitting Atlantis, I can see their rarity is a great difficulty; otherwise, seeing that the latitude is only a little north of the Persian Gulf, and seeing the long sea-transport for seeds, the rarity of northern plants does not seem to me difficult. The immigration may have been from a southerly direction, and it seems that some few African as well as coldish plants are common to the mountains to the south.

Regarding cold temperate plants in Madeira, I honestly don’t know enough to have a solid opinion; however, considering Atlantis, I can understand that their rarity poses a significant challenge. Given that the latitude is just slightly north of the Persian Gulf and the lengthy sea transport required for seeds, the scarcity of northern plants doesn’t seem particularly surprising to me. It's possible that the immigration came from a southern direction, and it appears that a few African and cooler climate plants are common in the mountains to the south.

Believing in occasional transport, I cannot feel so much surprise at there being a good deal in common to Madeira and Canary, these being the nearest points of land to each other. It is quite new and very interesting to me what you say about the endemic plants being in so large a proportion rare species. From the greater size of the workshop (i.e., greater competition and greater number of individuals, etc.) I should expect that continental forms, as they are occasionally introduced, would always tend to beat the insular forms; and, as in every area, there will always be many forms more or less rare tending towards extinction, I should certainly have expected that in islands a large proportion of the rarer forms would have been insular in their origin. The longer the time any form has existed in an island into which continental forms are occasionally introduced, by so much the chances will be in favour of its being peculiar or abnormal in nature, and at the same time scanty in numbers. The duration of its existence will also have formerly given it the best chance, when it was not so rare, of being widely distributed to adjoining archipelagoes. Here is a wriggle: the older a form is, the better the chance will be of its having become developed into a tree! An island from being surrounded by the sea will prevent free immigration and competition, hence a greater number of ancient forms will survive on an island than on the nearest continent whence the island was stocked; and I have always looked at Clethra (365/2. Clethra is an American shrubby genus of Ericaceae, found nowhere nearer to Madeira than North America. Of this plant and of Persea, Sir Charles Lyell ("Principles," 1872, Volume II., page 422) says: "Regarded as relics of a Miocene flora, they are just such forms as we should naturally expect to have come from the adjoining Miocene continent." See also "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 83, where a similar view is quoted from Heer.) and the other extra-European forms as remnants of the Tertiary flora which formerly inhabited Europe. This preservation of ancient forms in islands appears to me like the preservation of ganoid fishes in our present freshwaters. You speak of no northern plants on mountains south of the Pyrenees: does my memory quite deceive me that Boissier published a long list from the mountains in Southern Spain? I have not seen Wollaston's, "Catalogue," (365/4. Probably the "Catalogue of the Coleopterous Insects of the Canaries in the British Museum," 1864.) but must buy it, if it gives the facts about rare plants which you mention.

Believing in the occasional movement of species, I can’t be too surprised that there’s a lot in common between Madeira and the Canary Islands since they are the closest landmasses to each other. What you mentioned about the endemic plants being largely rare species is quite new and very interesting to me. Given the larger size of the workshop (which means more competition and more individuals, etc.), I would expect that continental species, when introduced, would usually outcompete the island species. And since in every area there will always be several rare forms that are on the brink of extinction, I would have anticipated that in islands a significant proportion of those rarer forms would originate there. The longer any species exists on an island where continental species are occasionally introduced, the more likely it is to be unique or unusual in nature, while also being scarce in numbers. Its longer existence would have previously given it the best chance, when it was more common, to be widely spread to nearby archipelagos. Here’s a twist: the older a species is, the better the odds that it has developed into a tree! An island, surrounded by the sea, will limit free immigration and competition, so more ancient species will survive there than on the nearest continent from which the island was populated. I've often considered Clethra and other non-European forms as remnants of the Tertiary flora that once thrived in Europe. This preservation of ancient forms on islands seems to me similar to the survival of ganoid fishes in our current freshwater ecosystems. You mention the absence of northern plants on mountains south of the Pyrenees: am I mistaken in remembering that Boissier published a long list from the mountains in Southern Spain? I haven’t seen Wollaston’s "Catalogue," but I should acquire it if it includes the details about the rare plants you mentioned.

And now I have given more than enough of my notions, which I well know will be in flat contradiction with all yours.

And now I’ve shared more than enough of my ideas, which I know will completely contradict all of yours.

Wollaston, in his "Insecta Maderensia" (365/5. "Insecta Maderensia," London, 1854.), 4to, page 12, and in his "Variation of Species," pages 82-7, gives the case of apterous insects, but I remember I worked out some additional details.

Wollaston, in his "Insecta Maderensia" (365/5. "Insecta Maderensia," London, 1854.), 4to, page 12, and in his "Variation of Species," pages 82-7, discusses the case of wingless insects, but I recall that I figured out some extra details.

I think he gives in these same works the proportion of European insects.

I believe he provides the proportion of European insects in these same works.

LETTER 366. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(366/1. Sir Joseph had asked (July 31st, 1866): "Is there an evidence that the south of England and of Ireland were not submerged during the Glacial epoch, when the W. and N. of England were islands in a glacial sea? And supposing they were above water, could the present Atlantic and N.W. of France floras we now find there have been there during the Glacial epoch?—Yet this is what Forbes demands, page 346. At page 347 he sees this objection, and wriggles out of his difficulty by putting the date of the Channel 'towards the close of the Glacial epoch.' What does Austen make the date of the Channel?—ante or post Glacial?" The changes in level and other questions are dealt with in a paper by R.A.C. Austen (afterwards Godwin-Austen), "On the Superficial Accumulations of the Coasts of the English Channel and the Changes they indicate." "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." VII., 1851, page 118. Obit. notice by Prof. Bonney in the "Proc. Geol. Soc." XLI., page 37, 1885.)

(366/1. Sir Joseph had asked (July 31st, 1866): "Is there any evidence that the south of England and Ireland were not submerged during the Glacial epoch, when the west and north of England were islands in a glacial sea? And if they were above water, could the current Atlantic and northwest France plant life that we observe there now have been present during the Glacial epoch?—Yet this is what Forbes demands, page 346. On page 347, he acknowledges this objection and escapes his dilemma by suggesting the Channel's formation occurred 'towards the close of the Glacial epoch.' What does Austen propose as the timeline for the Channel?—before or after the Glacial period?" The changes in sea level and other inquiries are addressed in a paper by R.A.C. Austen (later known as Godwin-Austen), "On the Superficial Accumulations of the Coasts of the English Channel and the Changes they Indicate." "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." VII., 1851, page 118. Obituary notice by Prof. Bonney in the "Proc. Geol. Soc." XLI., page 37, 1885.)

Down, August 3rd {1866}.

Down, August 3, 1866.

I will take your letter seriatim. There is good evidence that S.E. England was dry land during the Glacial period. I forget what Austen says, but Mammals prove, I think, that England has been united to the Continent since the Glacial period. I don't see your difficulty about what I say on the breaking of an isthmus: if Panama was broken through would not the fauna of the Pacific flow into the W. Indies, or vice versa, and destroy a multitude of creatures? Of course I'm no judge, but I thought De Candolle had made out his case about small areas of trees. You will find at page 112, 3rd edition "Origin," a too concise allusion to the Madeira flora being a remnant of the Tertiary European flora. I shall feel deeply interested by reading your botanical difficulties against occasional immigration. The facts you give about certain plants, such as the heaths, are certainly very curious. (366/2. In Hooker's lecture he gives St. Dabeoc's Heath and Calluna vulgaris as the most striking of the few boreal plants in the Azores. Darwin seems to have been impressed by the boreal character of the Azores, thus taking the opposite view to that of Sir Joseph. See Letter 370, note.) I thought the Azores flora was more boreal, but what can you mean by saying that the Azores are nearer to Britain and Newfoundland than to Madeira?—on the globe they are nearly twice as far off. (366/3. See Letter 368.) With respect to sea currents, I formerly made enquiries at Madeira, but cannot now give you the results; but I remember that the facts were different from what is generally stated: I think that a ship wrecked on the Canary Islands was thrown up on the coast of Madeira.

I will address your letter point by point. There's solid evidence that southeastern England was dry land during the Ice Age. I can't recall what Austen says, but I believe the presence of mammals indicates that England has been connected to the continent since that time. I don't understand your concerns about my comments on the break of an isthmus: if Panama were to be breached, wouldn't the wildlife of the Pacific flow into the West Indies, or the other way around, causing a lot of species to be wiped out? Of course, I'm not an expert, but I thought De Candolle had made a strong case regarding small areas of trees. You can find a brief reference on page 112 of the 3rd edition of "Origin" about the Madeira flora being a remnant of the Tertiary European flora. I’ll be very interested to read your arguments about occasional immigration regarding your botanical issues. The facts you present about certain plants, like the heaths, are definitely intriguing. (366/2. In Hooker's lecture, he mentions St. Dabeoc's Heath and Calluna vulgaris as the most notable of the few boreal plants in the Azores. Darwin seemed to be struck by the boreal nature of the Azores, taking a viewpoint different from that of Sir Joseph. See Letter 370, note.) I thought the Azores flora was more boreal, but what do you mean by saying that the Azores are closer to Britain and Newfoundland than to Madeira?—on the globe, they're nearly twice as far away. (366/3. See Letter 368.) Regarding ocean currents, I used to inquire about them in Madeira, but I can't provide you with the results now; however, I remember that the findings were different from what is usually stated: I think a shipwrecked on the Canary Islands was washed up on the coast of Madeira.

You speak as if only land-shells differed in Madeira and Porto Santo: does my memory deceive me that there is a host of representative insects?

You talk like only the land snails are different in Madeira and Porto Santo: am I mistaken in thinking there’s a whole range of different insects?

When you exorcise at Nottingham occasional means of transport, be honest, and admit how little is known on the subject. Remember how recently you and others thought that salt water would soon kill seeds. Reflect that there is not a coral islet in the ocean which is not pretty well clothed with plants, and the fewness of the species can hardly with justice be attributed to the arrival of few seeds, for coral islets close to other land support only the same limited vegetation. Remember that no one knew that seeds would remain for many hours in the crops of birds and retain their vitality; that fish eat seeds, and that when the fish are devoured by birds the seeds can germinate, etc. Remember that every year many birds are blown to Madeira and to the Bermudas. Remember that dust is blown 1,000 miles over the Atlantic. Now, bearing all this in mind, would it not be a prodigy if an unstocked island did not in the course of ages receive colonists from coasts whence the currents flow, trees are drifted and birds are driven by gales. The objections to islands being thus stocked are, as far as I understand, that certain species and genera have been more freely introduced, and others less freely than might have been expected. But then the sea kills some sorts of seeds, others are killed by the digestion of birds, and some would be more liable than others to adhere to birds' feet. But we know so very little on these points that it seems to me that we cannot at all tell what forms would probably be introduced and what would not. I do not for a moment pretend that these means of introduction can be proved to have acted; but they seem to me sufficient, with no valid or heavy objections, whilst there are, as it seems to me, the heaviest objections on geological and on geographical distribution grounds (pages 387, 388, "Origin" (366/4. Edition III., or Edition VI., page 323.) to Forbes' enormous continental extensions. But I fear that I shall and have bored you.

When you think about transportation methods in Nottingham, be honest and admit how little we actually know about the topic. Remember when you and others believed that salt water would quickly kill seeds? Consider that there isn’t a coral island in the ocean that isn’t fairly well covered with plants, and the limited number of species can hardly be fairly attributed to the arrival of only a few seeds, since coral islands close to other land also support just a similar limited vegetation. Recall that no one knew seeds could stay in the crops of birds for many hours and still remain viable; that fish eat seeds, and when those fish are eaten by birds, the seeds can germinate, etc. Keep in mind that every year, many birds get blown to Madeira and the Bermudas. Remember that dust can be carried 1,000 miles across the Atlantic. Now, with all this in mind, wouldn’t it be remarkable if an uninhabited island didn’t eventually get colonized by species from coasts along which the currents flow, trees are carried, and birds are swept by storms? The arguments against islands being populated this way, as far as I understand, are that some species and genera have been introduced more freely than others, which is less than expected. However, the sea kills certain types of seeds, some are destroyed during digestion by birds, and some would be more likely than others to stick to birds’ feet. But we know so little about these issues that it seems to me we can’t really accurately predict which forms would probably be introduced and which would not. I don’t pretend for a second that these methods of introduction can be definitively proven to work; however, they seem sufficient, without strong or convincing objections. Meanwhile, there appear to be significant objections based on geological and geographical distribution grounds (pages 387, 388, "Origin" (366/4. Edition III., or Edition VI., page 323.) to Forbes' massive continental extensions. But I worry I may have bored you.

LETTER 367. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(367/1. In a letter of July 31st, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote, "You must not suppose me to be a champion of continental connection, because I am not agreeable to trans-oceanic migration...either hypothesis appears to me well to cover the facts of oceanic floras, but there are grave objections to both, botanical to yours, geological to Forbes'.")

(367/1. In a letter dated July 31st, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote, "Don't think of me as a supporter of continental connection, because I don't agree with trans-oceanic migration... either option seems to explain the facts of oceanic plants well, but there are serious issues with both, botanical ones for yours, geological ones for Forbes'.")

The following interesting letters give some of Sir Joseph's difficulties.)

The following interesting letters highlight some of Sir Joseph's challenges.

Kew, August 4th, 1866.

Kew, August 4, 1866.

You mention ("Journal") no land-birds, except introduced, upon St. Helena. Beatson (Introduction xvii) mentions one (367/2. Aegialitis sanctae-helenae, a small plover "very closely allied to a species found in South Africa, but presenting certain differences which entitle it to the rank of a peculiar species" (Wallace, "Island Life," page 294). In the earlier editions of the "Origin" (e.g. Edition III., page 422) Darwin wrote that "Madeira does not possess one peculiar bird." In Edition IV., 1866, page 465, the mistake was put right.) "in considerable numbers," resembles sand-lark—is called "wire bird," has long greenish legs like wires, runs fast, eyes large, bill moderately long, is rather shy, does not possess much powers of flight. What was it? I have written to ask Sclater, also about birds of Madeira and Azores. It is a very curious thing that the Azores do not contain the (non-European) American genus Clethra, that is found in Madeira and Canaries, and that the Azores contain no trace of American element (beyond what is common to Madeira), except a species of Sanicula, a genus with hooked bristles to the small seed-vessels. The European Sanicula roams from Norway to Madeira, Canaries, Cape Verde, Cameroons, Cape of Good Hope, and from Britain to Japan, and also is, I think, in N. America; but does not occur in the Azores, where it is replaced by one that is of a decidedly American type.

You mention ("Journal") no native land birds, except for those that were introduced, on St. Helena. Beatson (Introduction xvii) refers to one (367/2. Aegialitis sanctae-helenae), a small plover that's "very closely related to a species found in South Africa, but has certain differences that qualify it as a distinct species" (Wallace, "Island Life," page 294). In earlier editions of the "Origin" (e.g., Edition III, page 422), Darwin noted that "Madeira does not have a single unique bird." In Edition IV, 1866, page 465, this error was corrected. This bird, which resembles a sand-lark and appears "in considerable numbers," is called "wire bird." It has long greenish legs that look like wires, runs quickly, has large eyes, a moderately long bill, is quite shy, and doesn't have much flying ability. What could it be? I've written to ask Sclater about birds in Madeira and the Azores as well. It's very strange that the Azores lack the (non-European) American genus Clethra, which is present in Madeira and the Canaries, and that the Azores show no evidence of an American element (apart from what is found in Madeira), except for a species of Sanicula, a genus with hooked bristles on its small seed vessels. The European Sanicula is found from Norway to Madeira, the Canaries, Cape Verde, Cameroon, the Cape of Good Hope, and from Britain to Japan, and I believe it's also in North America; however, it does not exist in the Azores, where it's replaced by a species that is clearly of an American type.

This tells heavily against the doctrine that joins Atlantis to America, and is much against your trans-oceanic migration—for considering how near the Azores are to America, and in the influence of the Gulf-stream and prevalent winds, it certainly appears marvellous. Not only are the Azores in a current that sweeps the coast of U. States, but they are in the S.W. winds, and in the eye of the S.W. hurricanes!

This strongly contradicts the idea that connects Atlantis to America, and it goes against your theory of trans-oceanic migration—because considering how close the Azores are to America, along with the effects of the Gulf Stream and the prevailing winds, it definitely seems incredible. The Azores are not only in a current that flows along the U.S. coast, but they are also affected by the southwest winds and are right in the path of the southwest hurricanes!

I suppose you will answer that the European forms are prepotent, but this is riding prepotency to death.

I guess you'll say that the European styles are dominant, but that's just overdoing it.

R.T. Lowe has written me a capital letter on the Madeiran, Canarian, and Cape Verde floras.

R.T. Lowe sent me a great letter about the plants of Madeira, the Canary Islands, and Cape Verde.

I misled you if I gave you to understand that Wollaston's Catalogue said anything about rare plants. I am worked and worried to death with this lecture: and curse myself as a soft headed and hearted imbecile to have accepted it.

I must have confused you if I made it seem like Wollaston's Catalogue mentioned anything about rare plants. I'm completely stressed out and exhausted over this lecture, and I can't help but be frustrated with myself for being such a naive idiot to have taken it on.

LETTER 368. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, Monday {August 6th, 1866}.

Again thanks for your letter. You need not fear my not doing justice to your objections to the continental hypothesis!

Again, thanks for your letter. You don’t need to worry about me not addressing your concerns about the continental hypothesis!

Referring to page 344 again (368/1. "Origin of Species," Edition III., pages 343-4: "In some cases, however, as by the breaking of an isthmus and the consequent irruption of a multitude of new inhabitants, or by the final subsidence of an island, the extinction may have been comparatively rapid."), it never occurred to me that you alluded to extinction of marine life: an isthmus is a piece of land, and you go on in the same sentence about "an island," which quite threw me out, for the destruction of an isthmus makes an island!

Referring to page 344 again (368/1. "Origin of Species," Edition III., pages 343-4: "In some cases, however, like when an isthmus breaks and a lot of new inhabitants flood in, or when an island finally sinks, extinction can happen relatively quickly."), it never crossed my mind that you were talking about the extinction of marine life: an isthmus is a land bridge, and you continue in the same sentence mentioning "an island," which really confused me, because the destruction of an isthmus creates an island!

I surely did not say Azores nearer to Britain and Newfoundland "than to Madeira," but "than Madeira is to said places."

I definitely didn’t say the Azores are closer to Britain and Newfoundland "than to Madeira," but "than Madeira is to those places."

With regard to the Madeiran coleoptera I rely very little on local distribution of insects—they are so local themselves. A butterfly is a great rarity in Kew, even a white, though we are surrounded by market gardens. All insects are most rare with us, even the kinds that abound on the opposite side of Thames.

With respect to the Madeiran beetles, I don’t depend much on the local distribution of insects—they're very localized themselves. A butterfly is a real rarity in Kew, even a white one, despite being surrounded by market gardens. All insects are quite rare here, even those that are common on the other side of the Thames.

So with shells, we have literally none—not a Helix even, though they abound in the lanes 200 yards off the Gardens. Of the 89 Dezertas insects {only?} 11 are peculiar. Of the 162 Porto Santan 113 are Madeiran and 51 Dezertan.

So with shells, we have absolutely none—not even a Helix, though they’re everywhere in the lanes just 200 yards from the Gardens. Of the 89 Dezertas insects, only 11 are unique. Out of the 162 Porto Santan, 113 are Madeiran and 51 are Dezertan.

Never mind bothering Murray about the new edition of the "Origin" for me. You will tell me anything bearing on my subject.

Never worry about asking Murray about the new edition of the "Origin" for me. You’ll share anything related to my topic.

LETTER 369. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, August 7th, 1866.

LETTER 369. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, August 7, 1866.

Dear old Darwin,

You must not let me worry you. I am an obstinate pig, but you must not be miserable at my looking at the same thing in a different light from you. I must get to the bottom of this question, and that is all I can do. Some cleverer fellow one day will knock the bottom out of it, and see his way to explain what to a botanist without a theory to support must be very great difficulties. True enough, all may be explained, as you reason it will be—I quite grant this; but meanwhile all is not so explained, and I cannot accept a hypothesis that leaves so many facts unaccounted for. You say the temperate parts of N. America {are} nearly two and a half times as distant from the Azores as Europe is. According to a rough calculation on Col. James' chart I make E. Azores to Portugal 850, West do. to Newfoundland 1500, but I am writing to a friend at Admiralty to have the distance calculated (which looks like cracking nuts with Nasmyth's hammer!)

You shouldn't let me worry you. I'm a stubborn person, but you shouldn't feel bad about me seeing things differently than you do. I need to figure this out, and that's all I can do. One day, someone smarter will come along and solve it, and they will find a way to explain what must be very challenging for a botanist without a theory to back it up. It's true that everything could be explained as you reason it will be—I totally agree with that; but for now, not everything is explained, and I can't accept a hypothesis that doesn't account for so many facts. You say the temperate parts of North America are about two and a half times farther from the Azores than Europe is. According to a rough calculation based on Col. James' chart, I figure the distance from East Azores to Portugal is 850 miles, and from the West Azores to Newfoundland is 1500 miles, but I'm writing to a friend at the Admiralty to have the distance calculated (which feels like cracking nuts with Nasmyth's hammer!)

Are European birds blown to America? Are the Azorean erratics an established fact? I want them very badly, though they are not of much consequence, as a slight sinking would hide all evidence of that sort.

Are European birds blown to America? Are the Azorean erratics a proven fact? I really want them to be, even though they don’t matter much, since a small subsidence would cover up all evidence of that kind.

I do want to sum up impartially, leaving the verdict to jury. I cannot do this without putting all difficulties most clearly. How do you know how you would fare with me if you were a continentalist! Then too we must recollect that I have to meet a host who are all on the continental side—in fact, pretty nearly all the thinkers, Forbes, Hartung, Heer, Unger, Wollaston, Lowe (Wallace, I suppose), and now Andrew Murray. I do not regard all these, and snap my fingers at all but you; in my inmost soul I conscientiously say I incline to your theory, but I cannot accept it as an established truth or unexceptionable hypothesis.

I want to wrap this up fairly, leaving the verdict to the jury. I can’t do this without clearly laying out all the challenges. How do you know how you would handle things with me if you were on the continental side? Plus, we have to remember that I’m up against a whole group that supports the continental viewpoint—almost all the thinkers: Forbes, Hartung, Heer, Unger, Wollaston, Lowe (and Wallace, I suppose), and now Andrew Murray. I don’t disregard all of them and just brush you off; deep down, I honestly lean towards your theory, but I can’t accept it as a proven truth or a flawless hypothesis.

The "Wire bird" being a Grallator is a curious fact favourable to you...How I do yearn to go out again to St. Helena.

The "Wire bird," being a Grallator, is an interesting fact that works in your favor... I really long to go out again to St. Helena.

Of course I accept the ornithological evidence as tremendously strong, though why they should get blown westerly, and not change specifically, as insects, shells, and plants have done, is a mystery.

Of course I find the bird-related evidence to be incredibly strong, but why they should be blown westward and not evolve specifically, like insects, shells, and plants have, is a mystery.

LETTER 370. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 8th {1866}.

It would be a very great pleasure to me if I could think that my letters were of the least use to you. I must have expressed myself badly for you to suppose that I look at islands being stocked by occasional transport as a well-established hypothesis. We both give up creation, and therefore have to account for the inhabitants of islands either by continental extensions or by occasional transport. Now, all that I maintain is that of these two alternatives, one of which must be admitted, notwithstanding very many difficulties, occasional transport is by far the most probable. I go thus far further—that I maintain, knowing what we do, that it would be inexplicable if unstocked islands were not stocked to a certain extent at least by these occasional means. European birds are occasionally driven to America, but far more rarely than in the reverse direction: they arrive via Greenland (Baird); yet a European lark has been caught in Bermuda.

I would be really pleased if I could think my letters were at all useful to you. I must have expressed myself poorly for you to think that I consider islands being populated by occasional transport as a well-established idea. We both agree that creation isn’t a factor, so we need to explain the inhabitants of islands either through continental extensions or by occasional transport. I only argue that of these two options, which must be accepted despite numerous challenges, occasional transport is by far the most likely. I go even further—given what we know, it would be hard to explain why unpopulated islands aren’t at least partially populated through these occasional means. European birds sometimes make it to America, but much more rarely go the other way: they arrive via Greenland (Baird); however, a European lark has been caught in Bermuda.

By the way, you might like to hear that European birds regularly migrate via the northern islands to Greenland.

By the way, you might find it interesting that European birds often migrate through the northern islands to Greenland.

About the erratics in the Azores see "Origin," page 393. (370/1. "Origin," Edition VI., page 328. The importance of erratic blocks on the Azores is in showing the probability of ice-borne seeds having stocked the islands, and thus accounting for the number of European species and their unexpectedly northern character. Darwin's delight in the verification of his theory is described in a letter to Sir Joseph of April 26th, 1858, in the "Life and Letters," II., page 112.) Hartung could hardly be mistaken about granite blocks on a volcanic island.

About the erratics in the Azores, see "Origin," page 393. (370/1. "Origin," Edition VI., page 328. The significance of erratic blocks in the Azores lies in their support for the idea that ice-borne seeds may have populated the islands, which helps explain the variety of European species and their unexpectedly northern traits. Darwin's excitement over confirming his theory is detailed in a letter to Sir Joseph from April 26th, 1858, in the "Life and Letters," II., page 112.) Hartung could not have been mistaken about granite blocks on a volcanic island.

I do not think it a mystery that birds have not been modified in Madeira. (370/2. "Origin," Edition VI., page 328. Madeira has only one endemic bird. Darwin accounts for the fact from the island having been stocked with birds which had struggled together and become mutually co-adapted on the neighbouring continents. "Hence, when settled in their new homes, each kind will have been kept by the others in its proper place and habits, and will consequently have been but little liable to modification." Crossing with frequently arriving immigrants will also tend to keep down modification.) Pray look at page 422 of "Origin" {Edition III.}. You would not think it a mystery if you had seen the long lists which I have (somewhere) of the birds annually blown, even in flocks, to Madeira. The crossed stock would be the more vigorous.

I don't think it's a mystery that birds haven't changed much in Madeira. (370/2. "Origin," Edition VI., page 328. Madeira has only one unique bird. Darwin explains this by saying the island was populated with birds that struggled together and adapted to each other on nearby continents. "So, when they settled in their new homes, each kind would have been kept in its proper place and habits by the others, and therefore would have changed very little." The frequent arrival of new birds also helps to limit changes.) Please check page 422 of "Origin" {Edition III.}. You wouldn't find it mysterious if you had seen the long lists I have (somewhere) of the birds blown to Madeira each year, even in flocks. The mixed stock would be more robust.

Remember if you do not come here before Nottingham, if you do not come afterwards I shall think myself diabolically ill-used.

Remember, if you don't come here before Nottingham, and if you don't come afterwards, I'll feel seriously wronged.

LETTER 371. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, August 9th, 1866.

LETTER 371. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, August 9, 1866.

If my letters did not gene you it is impossible that you should suppose that yours were of no use to me! I would throw up the whole thing were it not for correspondence with you, which is the only bit of silver in the affair. I do feel it disgusting to have to make a point of a speciality in which I cannot see my way a bit further than I could before I began. To be sure, I have a very much clearer notion of the pros and cons on both sides (though these were rather forgotten facts than rediscoveries). I see the sides of the well further down more distinctly, but the bottom is as obscure as ever.

If my letters didn’t impact you, it’s hard to believe that yours were helpful to me! I would give up on the whole thing if it weren't for our correspondence, which is the only positive part of this situation. I find it frustrating to have to emphasize a specialty where I still can't see any further than when I started. Of course, I do have a much clearer understanding of the pros and cons on both sides (though those were more forgotten facts than anything new). I see the sides of the well more clearly further down, but the bottom is still just as unclear as ever.

I think I know the "Origin" by heart in relation to the subject, and it was reading it that suggested the queries about Azores boulders and Madeira birds. The former you and I have talked over, and I thought I remembered that you wanted it confirmed. The latter strikes me thus: why should plants and insects have been so extensively changed and birds not at all? I perfectly understand and feel the force of your argument in reference to birds per se, but why do these not apply to insects and plants? Can you not see that this suggests the conclusion that the plants are derived one way and the birds another?

I think I know the "Origin" inside and out regarding the topic, and reading it made me curious about the boulders in the Azores and the birds in Madeira. We've already discussed the boulders, and I thought you wanted that confirmed. As for the birds, I wonder: why have plants and insects changed so much while birds haven’t changed at all? I completely understand and appreciate your argument about birds specifically, but why doesn't that apply to insects and plants? Can't you see that this leads to the conclusion that plants come from one source and birds from another?

I certainly did take it for granted that you supposed the stocking {by} occasional transport to be something even more than a "well-established hypothesis," but disputants seldom stop to measure the strength of their antagonist's opinion.

I definitely took it for granted that you thought the stocking {by} occasional transport was something even more than just a "well-established hypothesis," but debaters rarely pause to consider the strength of their opponent's viewpoint.

I shall be with you on Saturday week, I hope. I should have come before, but have made so little progress that I could not. I am now at St. Helena, and shall then go to, and finish with, Kerguelen's land.

I hope to be with you on Saturday next week. I should have come earlier, but I haven't made much progress, so I couldn't. I'm currently at St. Helena, and then I will go to Kerguelen's land to finish up there.

(371/1. After giving the distances of the Azores, etc., from America, Sir Joseph continues:—)

But to my mind {it} does not mend the matter—for I do not ask why Azores have even proportionally (to distance) a smaller number of American plants, but why they have none, seeing the winds and currents set that way. The Bermudas are all American in flora, but from what Col. Munro informs me I should say they have nothing but common American weeds and the juniper (cedar). No changed forms, yet they are as far from America as Azores from Europe. I suppose they are modern and out of the pale.

But in my opinion, that doesn’t really solve the issue—I'm not questioning why the Azores have relatively few American plants compared to their distance, but rather why they have none at all, considering the winds and currents are directed that way. The Bermudas feature only American flora, but based on what Col. Munro tells me, I would say they consist solely of common American weeds and juniper (cedar). No altered variations, yet they're as far from America as the Azores are from Europe. I guess they’re modern and outside the norm.

...There is this, to me, astounding difference between certain oceanic islands which were stocked by continental extension and those stocked by immigration (following in both definitions your opinion), that the former {continental} do contain many types of the more distant continent, the latter do not any! Take Madagascar, with its many Asiatic genera unknown in Africa; Ceylon, with many Malayan types not Peninsular; Japan, with many non-Asiatic American types. Baird's fact of Greenland migration I was aware of since I wrote my Arctic paper. I wish I was as satisfied either of continental {extensions} or of transport means as I am of my Greenland hypothesis!

...There is this, to me, surprising difference between certain oceanic islands that were connected to continents and those that were populated by migration (according to your definitions), that the former {continental} have many species from the more distant continent, while the latter do not have any! Take Madagascar, which has many Asian species not found in Africa; Ceylon, with many Malayan species not found on the Peninsula; Japan, with many non-Asian American species. I was aware of Baird's fact about Greenland migration since I wrote my Arctic paper. I wish I felt as confident about continental {extensions} or means of transport as I do about my Greenland hypothesis!

Oh, dear me, what a comfort it is to have a belief (sneer away).

Oh, my goodness, what a relief it is to have a belief (sneer all you want).

LETTER 372. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 4th, 1866.

I have just finished the New Zealand "Manual" (372/1. "Handbook of the New Zealand Flora."), and am thinking about a discussion on the geographical distribution, etc., of the plants. There is scarcely a single indigenous annual plant in the group. I wish that I knew more of the past condition of the islands, and whether they have been rising or sinking. There is much that suggests the idea that the islands were once connected during a warmer epoch, were afterwards separated and much reduced in area to what they now are, and lastly have assumed their present size. The remarkable general uniformity of the flora, even of the arboreous flora, throughout so many degrees of latitude, is a very remarkable feature, as is the representation of a good many of the southern half of certain species of the north, by very closely allied varieties or species; and, lastly, there is the immense preponderance of certain genera whose species all run into one another and vary horribly, and which suggest a rising area. I hear that a whale has been found some miles inland.

I just finished the New Zealand "Manual" (372/1. "Handbook of the New Zealand Flora."), and I'm thinking about a discussion on the geographical distribution, etc., of the plants. There’s hardly a single native annual plant in this group. I wish I knew more about the past conditions of the islands and whether they have been rising or sinking. There’s a lot that suggests the islands were once connected during a warmer period, then separated and reduced in size to what they are now, and finally took on their current size. The remarkable overall uniformity of the flora, including the tree flora, across so many degrees of latitude is very striking, as is the presence of many species from the southern half of certain northern species represented by closely related varieties or species. Lastly, there’s the overwhelming dominance of certain genera whose species interbreed and vary tremendously, which suggests a rising territory. I heard that a whale has been found several miles inland.

LETTER 373. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 14th, 1866.

LETTER 373. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 14, 1866.

I do not see how the mountains of New Zealand, S. Australia, and Tasmania could have been peopled, and {with} so large an extent of antarctic (373/1. "Introductory Essay to Flora of New Zealand," page xx. "The plants of the Antarctic islands, which are equally natives of New Zealand, Tasmania, and Australia, are almost invariably found only on the lofty mountains of these countries.") forms common to Fuegia, without some intercommunication. And I have always supposed this was before the immigration of Asiatic plants into Australia, and of which plants the temperate and tropical plants of that country may be considered as altered forms. The presence of so many of these temperate and cold Australian and New Zealand genera on the top of Kini Balu in Borneo (under the equator) is an awful staggerer, and demands a very extended northern distribution of Australian temperate forms. It is a frightful assumption that the plains of Borneo were covered with a temperate cold vegetation that was driven up Kini Balu by the returning cold. Then there is the very distant distribution of a few Australian types northward to the Philippines, China, and Japan: that is a fearful and wonderful fact, though, as these plants are New Zealand too for the most part, the migration northward may have been east of Australia.

I don't understand how the mountains of New Zealand, South Australia, and Tasmania could have been populated, especially given the large areas of Antarctic conditions that are similar to those in Fuegia, without some kind of connection between them. I've always assumed this connection existed before the arrival of Asian plants in Australia, which the temperate and tropical plants in that country can be seen as modified versions of. The presence of so many temperate and cold Australian and New Zealand plants on top of Kini Balu in Borneo (right at the equator) is absolutely shocking and suggests a much broader northern spread of Australian temperate species. It's an outrageous idea that the plains of Borneo were once covered with temperate cold vegetation that was pushed up Kini Balu by returning cold temperatures. Additionally, the far-reaching distribution of some Australian types northward to the Philippines, China, and Japan is an astonishing fact; however, since most of these plants are also native to New Zealand, it's possible that their northward migration took place east of Australia.

LETTER 374. TO J.D. HOOKER. December 24th {1866}.

...One word more about the flora derived from supposed Pleistocene antarctic land requiring land intercommunication. This will depend much, as it seems to me, upon how far you finally settle whether Azores, Cape de Verdes, Tristan d'Acunha, Galapagos, Juan Fernandez, etc., etc., etc., have all had land intercommunication. If you do not think this necessary, might not New Zealand, etc., have been stocked during commencing Glacial period by occasional means from antarctic land? As for lowlands of Borneo being tenanted by a moderate number of temperate forms during the Glacial period, so far {is it} from appearing a "frightful assumption" that I am arrived at that pitch of bigotry that I look at it as proved!

...One more thing about the plant life that supposedly comes from ancient Pleistocene Antarctic land needing land connections. This will largely depend, as it seems to me, on how you ultimately decide whether the Azores, Cape Verde, Tristan da Cunha, Galapagos, Juan Fernandez, and others all had land connections. If you don't think this is necessary, could New Zealand, for example, have been populated during the early Glacial period through occasional means from Antarctic land? As for the lowlands of Borneo being home to a fair number of temperate species during the Glacial period, it is far from being a "wild assumption" that I have reached such a level of bias that I consider it proven!

LETTER 375. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 25th, 1866.

LETTER 375. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 25, 1866.

I was about to write to-day, when your jolly letter came this morning, to tell you that after carefully going over the N.Z. Flora, I find that there are only about thirty reputed indigenous Dicot. annuals, of which almost half, not being found by Banks and Solander, are probably non-indigenous. This is just 1/20th of the Dicots., or, excluding the doubtful, about 1/40th, whereas the British proportion of annuals is 1/4.6 amongst Dicots.!!! Of the naturalised New Zealand plants one-half are annual! I suppose there can be no doubt but that a deciduous-leaved vegetation affords more conditions for vegetable life than an evergreen one, and that it is hence that we find countries characterised by uniform climates to be poor in species, and those to be evergreens. I can now work this point out for New Zealand and Britain. Japan may be an exception: it is an extraordinary evergreen country, and has many species apparently, but it has so much novelty that it may not be so rich in species really as it hence looks, and I do believe it is very poor. It has very few annuals. Then, again, I think that the number of plants with irregular flowers, and especially such as require insect agency, diminishes much with evergreenity. Hence in all humid temperate regions we have, as a rule, few species, many evergreens, few annuals, few Leguminosae and orchids, few lepidoptera and other flying insects, many Coniferae, Amentaceae, Gramineae, Cyperaceae, and other wind-fertilised trees and plants, etc. Orchids and Leguminosae are scarce in islets, because the necessary fertilising insects have not migrated with the plants. Perhaps you have published this.

I was about to write today when your cheerful letter arrived this morning, letting me know that after carefully reviewing the N.Z. Flora, I found there are only about thirty plants believed to be native Dicot annuals, of which nearly half, not identified by Banks and Solander, are likely non-native. This is just 1/20th of the Dicots, or, if we exclude the questionable ones, about 1/40th, while the British proportion of annuals is 1/4.6 among Dicots! Of the naturalized plants in New Zealand, half are annual! I assume there can be no doubt that a deciduous-leaved vegetation supports more conditions for plant life than an evergreen one, and that's why we see countries with uniform climates being poor in species and tending to be evergreens. I can now explore this point for New Zealand and Britain. Japan might be an exception: it is an unusually evergreen country and appears to have many species, but it has so much novelty that it may not actually be as rich in species as it seems, and I believe it is quite poor. It has very few annuals. Additionally, I think that the number of plants with irregular flowers, especially those that require insect pollination, decreases significantly with evergreenness. Therefore, in all humid temperate regions, we typically find few species, many evergreens, few annuals, few Leguminosae and orchids, few lepidoptera and other flying insects, and many Coniferae, Amentaceae, Gramineae, Cyperaceae, and other wind-pollinated trees and plants. Orchids and Leguminosae are scarce on islands because the necessary pollinating insects haven't migrated with the plants. Perhaps you've published this.

LETTER 376. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 9th {1867}.

I like the first part of your paper in the "Gard. Chronicle" (376/1. The lecture on Insular Floras ("Gard. Chron." January 1867).) to an extraordinary degree: you never, in my opinion, wrote anything better. You ask for all, even minute criticisms. In the first column you speak of no alpine plants and no replacement by zones, which will strike every one with astonishment who has read Humboldt and Webb on Zones on Teneriffe. Do you not mean boreal or arctic plants? (376/2. The passage which seems to be referred to does mention the absence of BOREAL plants.) In the third column you speak as if savages (376/3. "Such plants on oceanic islands are, like the savages which in some islands have been so long the sole witnesses of their existence, the last representatives of their several races.") had generally viewed the endemic plants of the Atlantic islands. Now, as you well know, the Canaries alone of all the archipelagoes were inhabited. In the third column have you really materials to speak of confirming the proportion of winged and wingless insects on islands?

I really like the first part of your paper in the "Gard. Chronicle" (376/1. The lecture on Insular Floras ("Gard. Chron." January 1867).) a lot: in my opinion, you’ve never written anything better. You ask for all kinds of detailed feedback. In the first column, you don’t mention any alpine plants or their replacement by zones, which will surprise anyone who has read Humboldt and Webb on the zones in Tenerife. Do you mean boreal or arctic plants? (376/2. The passage which seems to be referred to does mention the absence of BOREAL plants.) In the third column, you talk as if indigenous people (376/3. "Such plants on oceanic islands are, like the savages which in some islands have been so long the sole witnesses of their existence, the last representatives of their several races.") have generally observed the endemic plants of the Atlantic islands. But, as you know, only the Canaries among all the archipelagos were inhabited. In the third column, do you really have enough information to discuss the ratio of winged to wingless insects on islands?

Your comparison of plants of Madeira with islets of Great Britain is admirable. (376/4. "What should we say, for instance, if a plant so totally unlike anything British as the Monizia edulis...were found on one rocky islet of the Scillies, or another umbelliferous plant, Melanoselinum...on one mountain in Wales; or if the Isle of Wight and Scilly Islands had varieties, species, and genera too, differing from anything in Britain, and found nowhere else in the world!")

Your comparison of Madeira's plants to those of Great Britain is excellent. (376/4. "What would we think, for example, if a plant as completely different from anything British as the Monizia edulis...was discovered on one rocky islet in the Scillies, or another umbelliferous plant, Melanoselinum...on a mountain in Wales; or if the Isle of Wight and Scilly Islands had varieties, species, and genera too, that are different from anything in Britain and found nowhere else in the world!")

I must allude to one of your last notes with very curious case of proportion of annuals in New Zealand. (376/5. On this subject see Hildebrand's interesting paper "Die Lebensdauer der Pflanzen" (Engler's "Botanische Jahrbucher," Volume II., 1882, page 51). He shows that annuals are rare in very dry desert-lands, in northern and alpine regions. The following table gives the percentages of annuals, etc., in various situations in Freiburg (Baden):—

I need to reference one of your recent notes concerning the interesting case of annual plants in New Zealand. (376/5. On this topic, check out Hildebrand's engaging paper "Die Lebensdauer der Pflanzen" (Engler's "Botanische Jahrbucher," Volume II., 1882, page 51). He demonstrates that annuals are uncommon in very dry desert areas, as well as in northern and alpine regions. The following table shows the percentages of annuals, etc., in different locations in Freiburg (Baden):—

                            Annuals.  Biennials.  Perennials.  Trees and
                                                                Shrubs.
     Sandy, dry, and
     stony places:            21         11           65           3

     Dry fields:               6          4           90

     Damp fields:             12          2           77           9

     Woods and copses:         3          2           65          31

     Water:                    3                      97

     Cultivated land:         89                      11

                            Annuals.  Biennials.  Perennials.  Trees and
                                                                Shrubs.
     Sandy, dry, and
     stony places:            21         11           65           3

     Dry fields:               6          4           90

     Damp fields:             12          2           77           9

     Woods and copses:         3          2           65          31

     Water:                    3                      97

     Cultivated land:         89                      11

Are annuals adapted for short seasons, as in arctic regions, or tropical countries with dry season, or for periodically disturbed and cultivated ground? You speak of evergreen vegetation as leading to few or confined conditions; but is not evergreen vegetation connected with humid and equable climate? Does not a very humid climate almost imply (Tyndall) an equable one?

Are annuals suited for short growing seasons, like in arctic regions or tropical countries with a dry season, or for ground that’s disturbed and cultivated periodically? You mention that evergreen vegetation leads to limited or specific conditions; however, isn’t evergreen vegetation associated with a humid and stable climate? Doesn’t a very humid climate almost suggest (Tyndall) a stable one?

I have never printed a word that I can remember about orchids and papilionaceous plants being few in islands on account of rarity of insects; and I remember you screamed at me when I suggested this a propos of Papilionaceae in New Zealand, and of the statement about clover not seeding there till the hive-bee was introduced, as I stated in my paper in "Gard. Chronicle." (376/6. "In an old number of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" an extract is given from a New Zealand newspaper in which much surprise is expressed that the introduced clover never seeded freely until the hive-bee was introduced." "On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers..." ("Gard. Chron." 1858, page 828). See Letter 362, note.) I have been these last few days vexed and annoyed to a foolish degree by hearing that my MS. on Domestic Animals, etc., will make two volumes, both bigger than the "Origin." The volumes will have to be full-sized octavo, so I have written to Murray to suggest details to be printed in small type. But I feel that the size is quite ludicrous in relation to the subject. I am ready to swear at myself and at every fool who writes a book.

I don't recall ever writing anything about orchids and butterfly plants being rare on islands due to a lack of insects; and I remember you yelled at me when I brought this up regarding the Papilionaceae in New Zealand, and about how clover didn't seed there until the hive bee was introduced, as I mentioned in my paper in the "Gard. Chronicle." (376/6. "In an old issue of the 'Gardeners' Chronicle,' there's an excerpt from a New Zealand newspaper expressing surprise that the introduced clover never seeded freely until the hive bee was brought in." "On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers..." ("Gard. Chron." 1858, page 828). See Letter 362, note.) I've been really frustrated over the past few days hearing that my manuscript on Domestic Animals, etc., will end up being two volumes, both larger than the "Origin." The volumes will have to be full-sized octavo, so I've written to Murray to suggest printing some details in smaller type. But I find the size completely ridiculous in relation to the subject. I'm ready to curse myself and every idiot who writes a book.

LETTER 377. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 15th {1867}.

Thanks for your jolly letter. I have read your second article (377/1. The lecture on Insular Floras was published in instalments in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," January 5th, 12th, 19th, 26th, 1867.), and like it even more than the first, and more than this I cannot say. By mere chance I stumbled yesterday on a passage in Humboldt that a violet grows on the Peak of Teneriffe in common with the Pyrenees. If Humboldt is right that the Canary Is. which lie nearest to the continent have a much stronger African character than the others, ought you not just to allude to this? I do not know whether you admit, and if so allude to, the view which seems to me probable, that most of the genera confined to the Atlantic islands (I do not say the species) originally existed in, and were derived from, Europe, {and have} become extinct on this continent. I should thus account for the community of peculiar genera in the several Atlantic islands. About the Salvages is capital. (377/2. The Salvages are rocky islets about midway between Madeira and the Canaries; and they have an Atlantic flora, instead of, as might have been expected, one composed of African immigrants. ("Insular Floras," page 5 of separate copy.)) I am glad you speak of LINKING, though this sounds a little too close, instead of being continuous. All about St. Helena is grand. You have no faith, but if I knew any one who lived in St. Helena I would supplicate him to send me home a cask or two of earth from a few inches beneath the surface from the upper part of the island, and from any dried-up pond, and thus, as sure as I'm a wriggler, I should receive a multitude of lost plants.

Thanks for your cheerful letter. I've read your second article (377/1. The lecture on Insular Floras was published in installments in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," January 5th, 12th, 19th, 26th, 1867.), and I like it even more than the first, and that's about all I can say. By pure chance, I came across a passage in Humboldt mentioning that a violet grows on the Peak of Teneriffe, just like in the Pyrenees. If Humboldt is right that the Canary Islands, which are closest to the continent, have a much stronger African character than the others, shouldn't you at least mention this? I'm not sure if you acknowledge, and if so, mention, the idea that seems likely to me: that most of the genera exclusive to the Atlantic islands (I'm not saying the species) originally existed in and came from Europe, and have become extinct on this continent. That would explain the similarity of unique genera across the various Atlantic islands. The part about the Salvages is excellent. (377/2. The Salvages are rocky islets about midway between Madeira and the Canaries; and they have an Atlantic flora, instead of, as one might expect, one made up of African immigrants. ("Insular Floras," page 5 of separate copy.)) I'm glad you mentioned LINKING, although that sounds a bit too close instead of being continuous. Everything about St. Helena is amazing. You may lack faith, but if I knew anyone living in St. Helena, I'd ask them to send me home a cask or two of soil from a few inches below the surface from the upper part of the island and from any dried-up pond, and I’m sure I’d end up with a plethora of lost plants.

I did suggest to you to work out proportion of plants with irregular flowers on islands; I did this after giving a very short discussion on irregular flowers in my Lythrum paper. (377/3. "Linn. Soc. Journ." VIII., 1865, page 169.) But what on earth has a mere suggestion like this to do with meum and tuum? You have comforted me much about the bigness of my book, which yet turns me sick when I think of it.

I suggested that you study the ratio of plants with irregular flowers on islands; I mentioned this after briefly discussing irregular flowers in my Lythrum paper. (377/3. "Linn. Soc. Journ." VIII., 1865, page 169.) But what does a simple suggestion like this have to do with property rights? You've reassured me quite a bit about the size of my book, which still makes me feel uneasy when I think about it.

Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!

MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN

By Charles Darwin

A RECORD OF HIS WORK IN A SERIES OF HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED LETTERS EDITED BY FRANCIS DARWIN, FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, AND A.C. SEWARD, FELLOW OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE IN TWO VOLUMES

VOLUME I.

DEDICATED WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT, TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIS LIFELONG FRIENDSHIP WITH CHARLES DARWIN "You will never know how much I owe to you for your constant kindness and encouragement" CHARLES DARWIN TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER, SEPTEMBER 14, 1862

PREFACE

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN.

VOLUME I.

OUTLINE OF CHARLES DARWIN'S LIFE.

BASED ON HIS DIARY, DATED AUGUST 1838.

CHARLES DARWIN

CHAPTER 1.I.—AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL FRAGMENT, AND EARLY LETTERS.

1809-1842.

CHAPTER 1.II.—EVOLUTION, 1844-1858.

CHAPTER 1.III.—EVOLUTION, 1859-1863.

CHAPTER 1.IV.—EVOLUTION, 1864-1869.

CHAPTER 1.V.—EVOLUTION, 1870-1882.

CHAPTER 1.VI.—GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, 1843-1867.

A RECORD OF HIS WORK IN A SERIES OF HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED LETTERS

EDITED BY FRANCIS DARWIN, FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE,
AND A.C. SEWARD, FELLOW OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

IN TWO VOLUMES

DEDICATED WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT, TO

SIR JOSEPH HOOKER

IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIS LIFELONG FRIENDSHIP WITH CHARLES DARWIN

"You will never know how much I owe to you for your constant kindness and encouragement"

CHARLES DARWIN TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER, SEPTEMBER 14, 1862