is in danger of extinction.
4. If _sterility_ could be induced, then the pure races would increase
more rapidly and replace the old species.
5. It is admitted that _partial sterility_ between _varieties_ does
occasionally occur. It is admitted 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?
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.
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.
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 useful and would be increased by selection.
I have read Sir C. Lyell's second volume with great pleasure. He is, as
usual, very cautious, and hardly ever expresses a positive opinion, but
the general effect of the whole book is very strong, as the argument is
all on our side.
I am in hopes it will bring in a new set of converts to Natural
Selection, and will at all events lead to a fresh ventilation of the
subject.--Believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_4 Chester Place, Regent's Park, N.W. March 27, 1868._
My dear Wallace,--My son has failed in your problem, and says that it is
"excessively difficult": he says you will find something about it in
Thomson and Tait, "Natural Philosophy" (art. 649). He has, however, sent
the solution, if the plate rested on a square rim, but he supposes this
will not answer your purpose; nevertheless, I have forwarded it by this
same post. It seems that the rim being round makes the problem much more
difficult.
I enclose my photograph, which I have received from Down. I sent your
answer to George on his objection to your argument on sterility, but
have not yet heard from him. I dread beginning to think over this
fearful problem, which I believe beats the plate on the circular rim;
but I will sometime. I foresee, however, that there are so many doubtful
points that we shall never agree. As far as a glance serves it seems to
me, perhaps falsely, that you sometimes argue that hybrids have an
advantage from greater vigour, and sometimes a disadvantage from not
being so well fitted to their conditions. Heaven protect my stomach
whenever I attempt following your argument!--Yours most sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent. April 6, 1868._
My dear Wallace,--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 agree with my son's argument and not with 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 produce _from any cause_ fewer
young, the deficiency would be supplied from surrounding districts. This
applies to your par. 5. 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 demur to the probability and almost to the possibility of par. 1, as
you start with two forms, within the same area, which are not mutually
sterile, and which yet have supplanted the parent-form (par. 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.
Par. 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 the case of pigeons, fowls, and
cabbages.
I overlooked the advantage of the half-sterility of reciprocal crosses;
yet, perhaps from novelty, I do not feel inclined to admit the
probability of Natural Selection having done its work so clearly.
I will not discuss the second case of utter sterility; but your
assumptions in par. 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.
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 seeds) 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.
My son, I am sorry to say, cannot see the full force of your rejoinder
in regard to the second head of continually augmented sterility. You
speak in this rejoinder, and in par. 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.
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.--My dear Wallace, most
sincerely yours,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_Hurstpierpoint. [?] April 8, 1868._
Dear Darwin,--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 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? 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
area, whereas the average number of offspring is not a very variable
element.
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.
While writing a few pages on the northern alpine forms of plants on the
Java mountains I wanted a few cases to refer to like Teneriffe, where
there are no _northern_ forms, and scarcely any alpine. I expected the
volcanoes of Hawaii would be a good case, and asked Dr. Seeman about
them. It seems a man has lately published a list of Hawaiian plants, and
the mountains swarm with European alpine genera and some species![68] Is
not this most extraordinary and a puzzler? They are, I believe, truly
oceanic islands in the absence of mammals and the extreme poverty of
birds and insects, and they are within the tropics. Will not that be a
hard nut for you when you come to treat in detail on geographical
distribution?
I enclose Seeman's note, which please return when you have copied the
list, if of any use to you.
Many thanks for your carte, which I think very good. The large one had
not arrived when I was in town last week.
Sir C. Lyell's chapter on Oceanic Islands I think very good.--Believe
me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 9, 1868._
My dear Wallace,--You allude in your note to several points which I
should much enjoy discussing with you did time and strength permit. I
know Dr. Seeman is a good botanist, but I most strongly advise you to
show the list to Hooker before you make use of the materials in print.
Hooker seems much overworked, and is now gone a tour, but I suppose you
will be in town before very long, and could see him. The list is quite
unintelligible to me; it is not pretended that the same species exist in
the Sandwich Islands and Arctic regions; and as far as the genera are
concerned, I know that in almost every one of them species inhabit such
countries as Florida, North Africa, New Holland, etc. Therefore these,
genera seem to me almost mundane, and their presence in the Sandwich
Islands will not, as I suspect in my ignorance, show any relation to the
Arctic regions. The Sandwich Islands, though I have never considered
them much, have long been a sore perplexity to me: they are eminently
oceanic in position and productions; they have long been separated from
each other; and there are only slight signs of subsidence in the islets
to the westward. I remember, however, speculating that there must have
been some immigration during the glacial period from North America or
Japan; but I cannot remember what my grounds were. Some of the plants, I
think, show an affinity with Australia. I am very glad that you like
Lyell's chapter on Oceanic Islands, for I thought it one of the best in
the part which I have read. If you do not receive the big photo of me in
due time, let me hear.--Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
The following refers to Wallace's article, "A Theory of Birds' Nests,"
in Andrew Murray's _Journal of Travel_, i. 73. He here treats in fuller
detail the view already published in the _Westminster Review_ for July,
1867, p. 38. The rule which Wallace believes, with very few exceptions,
to hold good is, "that when both sexes are of strikingly gay and
conspicuous colours, the nest is ... such as to conceal the sitting
bird; while, whenever there is a striking contrast of colours, the male
being gay and conspicuous, the female dull and obscure, the nest is open
and the sitting bird exposed to view." At this time Wallace allowed
considerably more influence to _sexual_ selection (in combination with
the need of protection) than in his later writings. See his letter to
Darwin of July 23, 1877 (p. 298), which fixes the period at which the
change in his views occurred. He finally rejected Darwin's theory that
colours "have been developed by the preference of the females, the more
ornamented males becoming the parents of each successive generation."
(_See_ "Darwinism," 1889, p. 285.)
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 15, 1868._
My dear Wallace,--I have been deeply interested by your admirable
article on Birds' Nests. I am delighted to see that we really differ
very little--not more than two men almost always will. You do not lay
much or any stress on new characters spontaneously appearing in one sex
(generally the male) and being transmitted exclusively, or more commonly
only in excess, to that sex. I, on the other hand, formerly paid far too
little attention to protection. I had only a glimpse of the truth. But
even now I do not go quite as far as you. I cannot avoid thinking rather
more than you do about the exceptions in nesting to the rule, especially
the partial exceptions, i.e. when there is some little difference
between the sexes in species which build concealed nests. I am now quite
satisfied about the incubating males; there is so little difference in
conspicuousness between the sexes. I wish with all my heart I could go
the whole length with you. You seem to think that such birds probably
select the most beautiful females: I must feel some doubt on this head,
for I can find no evidence of it. Though I am writing so carping a note,
I admire the article _thoroughly_.
And now I want to ask a question. When female butterflies are more
brilliant than their males, you believe that they have in most cases, or
in all cases, been rendered brilliant so as to mimic some other species
and thus escape danger. But can you account for the males not having
been rendered equally brilliant and equally protected? Although it may
be most for the welfare of the species that the female should be
protected, yet it would be some advantage, certainly no disadvantage,
for the unfortunate male to enjoy an equal immunity from danger. For my
part, I should say that the female alone had happened to vary in the
right manner, and that the beneficial variations had been transmitted to
the same sex alone. Believing in this, I can see no improbability (but
from analogy of domestic animals a strong probability): the variations
leading to beauty must _often_ have occurred in the males alone, and
been transmitted to that sex alone. Thus I should account in many cases
for the greater beauty of the male over the female, without the need of
the protective principle. I should be grateful for an answer on this
point.
I hope that your Eastern book progresses well.--My dear Wallace, yours
sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
Sir Clifford Allbutt's view, referred to in the following letter,
probably had reference to the fact that the sperm-cell goes, or is
carried, to the germ-cell, never vice versa. In this letter Darwin gives
the reason for the "law" referred to. Wallace has been good enough to
supply the following note (May 27, 1902): "It was at this time that my
paper on 'Protective Resemblance' first appeared in the _Westminster
Review_, in which I adduced the greater, or, rather, the more
continuous, importance of the female (in the lower animals) for the
race, and my 'Theory of Birds' Nests' (_Journal of Travel and Natural
History_, No. 2), in which I applied this to the usually dull colours of
female butterflies and birds. It is to these articles, as well as to my
letters, that Darwin chiefly refers."
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 30, 1868._
My dear Wallace,--Your letter, like so many previous ones, has
interested me much. Dr. Allbutt's view occurred to me some time ago, and
I have written a short discussion on it. It is, I think, a remarkable
law, to which I have found no exception. The foundation lies in the fact
that in many cases the eggs or seeds require nourishment and protection
by the mother-form for some time after impregnation. Hence the
spermatozoa and antherozoids travel in the lower aquatic animals and
plants to the female, and pollen is borne to the female organ. As
organisms rise in the scale it seems natural that the male should carry
the spermatozoa to the females in his own body. As the male is the
searcher he has received and gained more eager passions than the female;
and, very differently from you, I look at this as _one_ great difficulty
in believing that the males select the more attractive females; as far
as I can discover they are always ready to seize on any female, and
sometimes on many females. Nothing would please me more than to find
evidence of males selecting the more attractive females [? _in
pigeons_[69]]: I have for months been trying to persuade myself of this.
There is the case of man in favour of this belief, and I know in hybrid
[_lizards'_[69]] unions of males preferring particular females, but alas!
not guided by colour. Perhaps I may get more evidence as I wade through
my twenty years' mass of notes.
I am not shaken about the female protected butterflies: I will grant
(only for argument) that the life of the male is of _very_ little value;
I will grant that the males do not vary; yet why has not the protective
beauty of the female been transferred by inheritance to the male? The
beauty would be a gain to the male, as far as we can see, as a
protection; and I cannot believe that it would be repulsive to the
female as she became beautiful. But we shall never convince each other.
I sometimes marvel how truth progresses, so difficult is it for one man
to convince another unless his mind is vacant. Nevertheless, I myself to
a certain extent contradict my own remark; for I believe _far more_ in
the importance of protection than I did before reading your articles.
I do not think you lay nearly stress enough in your articles on what you
admit in your letter, viz. "there seems to be some production of
vividness ... of colour in the male independent of protection." This I
am making a chief point; and have come to your conclusion so far that I
believe that intense colouring in the female sex is often checked by
being dangerous.
That is an excellent remark of yours about no known case of the male
_alone_ assuming protective colours; but in the cases in which
protection has been gained by dull colours, I presume that sexual
selection would interfere with the male losing his beauty. If the male
alone had acquired beauty as a protection, it would be most readily
overlooked, as males are so often more beautiful than their females.
Moreover, I grant that the loss of the male is somewhat less precious
and thus there would be less rigorous selection with the male, so he
would be less likely to be made beautiful through Natural Selection for
protection. (This does not apply to sexual selection, for the greater
the excess of males and the less precious their lives, so much the
better for sexual selection.) But it seems to me a good argument, and
very good if it could be thoroughly established.--Yours most sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
I do not know whether you will care to read this scrawl.
P.S.--I heard yesterday that my photograph had been sent to your London
address--Westbourne Grove.
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. May 5, 1868._
My dear Wallace,--I am afraid I have caused you a great deal of trouble
in writing to me at such length. I am glad to say that I agree almost
entirely with your summary, except that I should put sexual selection as
an equal or perhaps as even a more important agent in giving colour than
natural selection for protection. As I get on in my work I hope to get
clearer and more decided ideas. Working up from the bottom of the scale
I have as yet only got to fishes. What I rather object to in your
articles is that I do not think anyone would infer from them that you
place sexual selection even as high as No. 4 in your summary. It was
very natural that you should give only a line to sexual selection in
the summary to the _Westminster Review_, but the result at first to my
mind was that you attributed hardly anything to its power. In your
penultimate note you say: "In the great mass of cases in which there is
_great_ differentiation of colour between the sexes, I believe it is due
_almost wholly_ to the need of protection to the female." Now, looking
to the whole animal kingdom I can at present by no means admit this
view; but pray do not suppose that because I differ to a certain extent,
I do not thoroughly admire your several papers and your admirable
generalisation on birds' nests. With respect to this latter point,
however, although following you, I suspect that I shall ultimately look
at the whole case from a rather different point of view.
You ask what I think about the gay-coloured females of Pieris:[70] I
believe I quite follow you in believing that the colours are wholly due
to mimicry; and I further believe that the male is not brilliant from
not having received through inheritance colour from the female, and from
not himself having varied; in short, that he has not been influenced by
Selection.
I can make no answer with respect to the elephants. With respect to the
female reindeer, I have hitherto looked at the horns simply as the
consequence of inheritance _not_ having been limited by sex.
Your idea about colour being concentrated in the smaller males seems
good, and I presume that you will not object to my giving it as your
suggestion.--Believe me, my dear Wallace, with many thanks, yours very
sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
Wallace's more recent views on the question of Natural Selection and
Sterility may be found in a note written by him in 1899: "When writing
my 'Darwinism' and coming again to the consideration of the 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 p, 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 anyone shown such fallacy to exist.
"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."--A.R.W.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. August 16, [1868?]._
Dear Darwin,--I ought to have written before to thank you for the copies
of your paper 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!
However, the fact remains an excellent answer to the statement that
sterility of hybrids proves the absolute distinctness of the parents.
I have been reading with great pleasure Mr. Bentham's last admirable
address,[71] in which he so well replies to the gross misstatements of
the _Athenæum_; and also says a word 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 am going to Norwich on Tuesday to hear Dr. Hooker, who I hope will
boldly promulgate "Darwinianism" in his address. Shall we have the
pleasure of seeing you there?
I am engaged in negotiations about my book.
Hoping you are well and getting on with your next volumes, believe me
yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Freshwater, Isle of Wight. August 19, 1868._
My dear Wallace,--Thanks for your note. I did sometimes think of going
to Norwich, for I should have very much liked it, but it has been quite
out of the question. We have been here for five weeks for a change, and
it has done me some little good; but I have been forced to live the life
of a drone, and for a month before leaving home I was unable to do
anything and had to stop all work.
We return to Down to-morrow.
Hooker has been here for two or three days, so that I have had much
talk about his Address. I am glad that you will be there.
It is real good news that your book is so advanced that you are
negotiating about its publication.
With respect to dimorphic plants: it is a great puzzle, but I _fancy_ I
partially see my way--too long for a letter and too speculative for
publication. The groundwork of the acquirement of such peculiar
fertility (for what you say about any other distinct individual being,
as it would appear, sufficient, is very true) rests on the stamens and
pistil having varied first in relative length, _as actually occurs_
irrespective of dimorphism, and the peculiar kind of fertility
characteristic of dimorphic and the trimorphic plants having been
_secondarily_ acquired. Pangenesis makes _very_ few converts: G.H. Lewes
is one.
I had become, before my nine weeks' horrid interruption of all work,
extremely interested in sexual selection and was making fair progress.
In truth, it has vexed me much to find that the further I get on, the
more I differ from you about the females being dull-coloured for
protection. I can now hardly express myself as strongly even as in the
"Origin." This has _much decreased_ the pleasure of my work.
In the course of September, if I can get at all stronger, I hope to get
Mr. J. Jenner Weir (who has been _wonderfully_ kind in giving me
information) to pay me a visit, and I will then write for the chance of
your being able to come and, I hope, bring with you Mrs. Wallace. If I
could get several of you together, it would be less dull for you, for of
late I have found it impossible to talk with any human being for more
than half an hour, except on extraordinarily good days.--Believe me, my
dear Wallace, ever yours sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent. August 30, [1868?]._
Dear Darwin,--I was very sorry to hear you had been so unwell again, and
hope you will not exert yourself to write me such long letters.
Darwinianism was in the ascendant at Norwich (I hope you do not dislike
the word, for we really _must_ use it), and I think it rather disgusted
some of the parsons, joined with the amount of _advice_ they received
from Hooker and Huxley. The worst of it is that there are no opponents
left who know anything of natural history, so that there are none of the
good discussions we used to have. G.H. Lewes seems to me to be making a
great mistake in the _Fortnightly_, advocating _many distinct_ origins
for different groups, and even, if I understand him, distinct origins
for some allied groups, just as the anthropologists do who make the red
man descend from the orang, the black man from the chimpanzee--or rather
the Malay and orang one ancestor, the negro and chimpanzee another. Vogt
told me that the Germans are all becoming converted by your last book.
I am certainly surprised that you should find so much evidence against
protection having checked the acquirement of bright colour in females;
but I console myself by presumptuously hoping that I can explain your
facts, unless they are derived from the very groups on which I chiefly
rest--birds and insects. There is nothing _necessarily_ requiring
protection in females; it is a matter of habits. There are groups in
which both sexes require protection in an exactly equal degree, and
others (I think) in which the male requires most protection, and I feel
the greatest confidence that these will ultimately support my view,
although I do _not_ yet know the facts they may afford.
Hoping you are in better health, believe me, dear Darwin, yours
faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. September 5, [1868?]._
Dear Darwin,--It will give me great pleasure to accept your kind
invitation for next Saturday and Sunday, and my wife would very much
like to come too, and will if possible. Unfortunately, there is a new
servant coming that very day, and there is a baby at the mischievous age
of a year and a quarter to be left in somebody's care; but I daresay it
will be managed somehow.
I will drop a line on Friday to say if we are coming the time you
mention.--Believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
_Friday_.
My dear Darwin,--My wife has arranged to accompany me to-morrow, and we
hope to be at Orpington Station at 5.44, as mentioned by you.--Very
truly yours,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. September 16, 1868._
My dear Wallace,--The beetles have arrived, and cordial thanks: I never
saw such wonderful creatures in my life. I was thinking of something
quite different. I shall wait till my son Frank returns, before soaking
and examining them. I long to steal the box, but return it by this post,
like a too honest man.
I am so much pleased about the male musk Callichroma; for by odd chance
I told Frank a week ago that next spring he must collect at Cambridge
lots of Cerambyx moschatus, for as sure as life he would find the odour
sexual!
You will be pleased to hear that I am undergoing severe distress about
protection and sexual selection: this morning I oscillated with joy
towards you; this evening I have swung back to the old position, out of
which I fear I shall never get.
I did most thoroughly enjoy my talk with you three gentlemen, and
especially with you, and to my great surprise it has not knocked me up.
Pray give my kindest remembrances to Mrs. Wallace, and if my wife were
at home she would cordially join in this.--Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
I have had this morning a capital letter from Walsh of Illinois; but
details too long to give.
* * * * *
Among Wallace's papers was found the following draft of a letter of his
to Darwin:
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. September 18, 1868._
Dear Darwin,--The more I think of your views as to the colours of
females, the more difficulty I find in accepting them, and as you are
now working at the subject I hope it will not interrupt you to hear
"counsel on the other side."
I have a "general" and a "special" argument to submit.
1. Female birds and insects are generally exposed to more danger than
the male, and in the case of insects their existence is necessary for a
longer period.
2. They therefore require in some way or other a special balance of
protection.
3. Now, if the male and female were distinct species, with different
habits and organisations, you would, I think, at once admit that a
difference of colour serving to make that one less conspicuous which
evidently required more protection than the other had been acquired by
Natural Selection.
4. But you admit that variations appearing in one sex are transmitted
(often) to that sex only: there is therefore nothing to prevent Natural
Selection acting on the two sexes as if they were two species.
5. Your objection that the same protection would to a certain extent be
useful to the male, seems to me utterly unsound, and directly opposed to
your own doctrine so convincingly urged in the "Origin," "_that Natural
Selection never can improve an animal beyond its needs_." So that
admitting abundant variation of colour in the male, it is impossible
that he can be brought by Natural Selection to resemble the female
(unless _her_ variations are always transmitted to _him_), because the
_difference_ of their colours is to balance the _difference_ in their
organisations and habits, and Natural Selection cannot give to the male
_more_ than is needed to effect that balance.
6. The fact that in almost all protected groups the females perfectly
resemble the males shows, I think, a tendency to transference of colour
from one sex to the other when this tendency is not injurious.
Or perhaps the _protection_ is acquired because this tendency exists. I
admit therefore in the case of concealed nests they [habits] may have
been acquired for protection.
Now for the special case.
7. In the very weak-flying Leptalis both sexes mimic Heliconidæ.
8. In the much more powerful Papilio, Pieris, and Diadema it is
generally the _female only_ that mimics Danaida.
9. In these cases the females often acquire more bright and varied
colours than the male. Sometimes, as in _Pieris pyrrha_, conspicuously
so.
10. No single case is known of a male Papilio, Pieris, Diadema (or any
other insect?) _alone_ mimicking a Danais, etc.
11. But colour is more frequent in males, and _variations_ always seem
ready for purposes of sexual or other selection.
12. The fair inference seems to be that given in proposition 5 of the
general argument, viz. that _each species_ and _each sex_ can only be
modified by selection just as far as is absolutely necessary, not a step
farther. A male, being by structure and habits less exposed to danger
and less requiring protection than the female, cannot have more
protection given to it by Natural Selection, but a female must have some
extra protection to balance the greater danger, and she rapidly acquires
it in one way or another.
13. An objection derived from cases like male fish, which seem to
require protection, yet having brighter colours, seems to me of no more
weight than is that of the existence of many white and unprotected
species of Leptalis to Bates's theory of mimicry, that only one or two
species of butterflies perfectly resemble leaves, or that the instincts
or habits or colours that seem essential to the preservation of one
animal are often totally absent in an allied species.
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent. September 23, 1868._
My dear Wallace,--I am very much obliged for all your trouble in writing
me your long letter, which I will keep by me and ponder over. To answer
it would require at least 200 folio pages! If you could see how often I
have rewritten some pages, you would know how anxious I am to arrive as
near as I can to the truth. We differ, I think, chiefly from fixing our
minds perhaps too closely on different points, on which we agree: I lay
great stress on what I know takes place under domestication: I think we
start with different fundamental notions on inheritance. I find it most
difficult, but not, I think, impossible, to see how, for instance, a few
red feathers appearing on the head of a male bird, and which _are at
first transmitted to both sexes_, could come to be transmitted to males
alone;[72] but I have no difficulty in making the whole head red if the
few red feathers in the male from the first tended to be sexually
transmitted. I am quite willing to admit that the female may have been
modified, either at the same time or subsequently, for protection, by
the accumulation of variations limited in their transmission to the
female sex. I owe to your writings the consideration of this latter
point. But I cannot yet persuade myself that females _alone_ have often
been modified for protection. Should you grudge the trouble briefly to
tell me whether you believe that the plainer head and less bright
_colours_ of [female symbol][73] chaffinch, the less red on the head and
less clean colours of [female symbol] goldfinch, the much less red on
breast of [female symbol] bullfinch, the paler crest of goldencrest
wren, etc., have been acquired by them for protection? I cannot think
so; any more than I can that the considerable differences between
[female symbol] and [male symbol] house-sparrow, or much greater
brightness of [male symbol] _Parus cæruleus_ (both of which build under
cover) than of [female symbol] Parus are related to protection. I even
misdoubt much whether the less blackness of blackbird is for protection.
Again, can you give me reason for believing that the merest differences
between female pheasants, the female _Gallus bankiva_, the female of
black grouse, the pea-hen, female partridge, have all special reference
to protection under slightly different conditions? I of course admit
that they are all protected by dull colours, derived, as I think, from
some dull-ground progenitor; and I account partly for their difference
by partial transference of colour from the male, and by other means too
long to specify; but I earnestly wish to see reason to believe that each
is specially adapted for concealment to its environment.
I grieve to differ from you, and it actually terrifies me, and makes me
constantly distrust myself.
I fear we shall never quite understand each other. I value the cases of
bright-coloured, incubating male fishes--and brilliant female
butterflies, solely as showing that one sex may be made brilliant
without any necessary transference of beauty to the other sex; for in
these cases I cannot suppose that beauty in the other sex was checked by
selection.
I fear this letter will trouble you to read it. A very short answer
about your belief in regard to the [female symbol] finches and
Gallinaceæ would suffice.--Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very
sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, S.W. September 27, 1868._
Dear Darwin,--Your view seems to be that variations occurring in one sex
are transmitted either to that sex exclusively or to both sexes equally,
or more rarely partially transferred. But we have every gradation of
sexual colours from total dissimilarity to perfect identity. If this is
explained solely by the laws of inheritance, then the colours of one or
other sex will be always (in relation to their environment) a _matter of
chance_. I cannot think this. I think Selection more powerful than laws
of inheritance, of which it makes use, as shown by cases of two, three
or four forms of female butterflies, all of which have, I have little
doubt, been specialised for protection.
To answer your first question is most difficult, if not impossible,
because we have no sufficient evidence in _individual cases of slight
sexual difference_, to determine whether the male alone has acquired his
superior brightness by sexual selection, or the female been made duller
by need of protection, or whether the two causes have acted. Many of the
sexual differences of existing species may be inherited differences from
parent forms who existed under different conditions and had greater or
less need of protection.
I think I admitted before the general tendency (probably) of males to
acquire brighter tints. Yet this cannot be universal, for many female
birds and quadrupeds have equally bright tints.
I think the case of [female symbol] _Pieris pyrrha_ proves that females
alone can be greatly modified for protection.
To your second question I can reply more decidedly. I do think the
females of the Gallmaceæ you mention have been modified or been
prevented from acquiring the brighter plumage of the male by need of
protection. I know that the _Gallus bankiva_ frequents drier and more
open situations than the pea-hen of Java, which is found among grassy
and leafy vegetation corresponding with the colours of the two. So the
Argus pheasant, [male symbol] and [female symbol], are, I feel sure,
protected by their tints corresponding to the dead leaves of the lofty
forest in which they dwell, and the female of the gorgeous fire-back
pheasant, _Lophura viellottii_, is of a very similar _rich brown
colour_. I do not, however, at all think the question can be settled by
individual cases, but only by large masses of facts.
The colours of the mass of female birds seem to me strictly analogous to
the colours of both sexes of snipes, woodcocks, plovers, etc., which are
undoubtedly protective.
Now, supposing, on your view, that the colours of a male bird become
more and more brilliant by sexual selection, and a good deal of that
colour is transmitted to the female till it becomes positively injurious
to her during incubation and the race is in danger of extinction, do you
not think that all the females who had acquired less of the male's
bright colours or who themselves varied in a protective direction would
be preserved, and that thus a good protective colouring would be
acquired? If you admit that this could occur, and can show no good
reason why it should not often occur, then we no longer differ, for this
is the main point of my view.
Have you ever thought of the red wax-tips of the Bombycilla beautifully
imitating the red fructification of lichens used in the nest, and
therefore the females have it too? Yet this is a very sexual-looking
character.
We begin printing this week.--Yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.--Pray don't distress yourself on this subject. It will all come
right in the end, and after all it is only an episode in your great
work.--A.R.W.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. October 4, 1868._
Dear Darwin,--I should have answered your letter before, but have been
very busy reading over my MSS. the last time before going to press,
drawing maps, etc. etc.
Your first question cannot be answered, because we have not, in
_individual cases_ of _slight sexual_ difference, sufficient evidence to
determine how much of that difference is due to sexual selection acting
on the male, how much to natural selection (protective) acting on the
female, or how much of the difference may be due to inherited
differences from ancestors who lived under different conditions. On your
second question I can give an opinion. I do think the females of the
Gallinaceæ you mention have been either _modified_; or _prevented from
acquiring much of the brighter plumage of the males_, by the need of
protection. I know that _Gallus bankiva_ frequents drier and more open
situations than _Pavo muticus_, which in Java is found among grassy and
leafy vegetation corresponding with the colours of the two females. So
the Argus pheasants, male and female, are, I feel sure, protected by
their tints corresponding to dead leaves of the dry lofty forests in
which they dwell; and the female of the gorgeous fire-back pheasant,
_Lophura viellottii_, is of a very similar rich brown colour.
These and many other colours of female birds seem to me exactly
analogous to the colours of _both sexes_ in such groups as the snipes,
woodcocks, plovers, ptarmigan, desert birds, Arctic animals, greenbirds.
[The second page of this letter has been torn off. This letter and that
of September 27 appear both to answer the same letter from Darwin. The
last page of this or of another letter was placed with it in the
portfolio of letters; it is now given.]
I am sorry to find that our difference of opinion on this point is a
source of anxiety to you.
Pray do not let it be so. The truth will come out at last, and our
difference may be the means of setting others to work who may set us
both right.
After all, this question is only an episode (though an important one) in
the great question of the origin of species, and whether you or I are
right will not at all affect the main doctrine--that is one comfort.
I hope you will publish your treatise on Sexual Selection as a separate
book as soon as possible, and then while you are going on with your
other work, there will no doubt be found someone to battle with me over
your facts, on this hard problem.
With best wishes and kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and all your family,
believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. October 6, 1868._
My dear Wallace,--Your letter is very valuable to me, and in every way
very kind. I will not inflict a long answer, but only answer your
queries. There are breeds (viz. Hamburgh) in which both sexes differ
much from each other and from both sexes of _G. bankiva_; and both sexes
are kept constant by selection.
The comb of Spanish [male symbol] has been ordered to be upright and
that of Spanish [female symbol] to lop over, and this has been effected.
There are sub-breeds of game fowl, with [female symbol]s very distinct
and [male symbol]s almost identical; but this apparently is the result
of spontaneous variation without special selection.
I am very glad to hear of the case of [female symbol] birds of paradise.
I have never in the least doubted the possibility of modifying female
birds _alone_ for protection; and I have long believed it for
butterflies: I have wanted only evidence for the females alone of birds
having had their colours modified for protection. But then I believe
that the variations by which a female bird or butterfly could get or has
got protective colouring have probably from the first been variations
limited in their transmission to the female sex; and so with the
variations of the male, where the male is more beautiful than the
female, I believe the variations were sexually limited in their
transmission to the males. I am delighted to hear that you have been
hard at work on your MS.--Yours most sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 20, 1869._
Dear Darwin,--It will give me very great pleasure if you will allow me
to dedicate my little book of Malayan Travels to you, although it will
be far too small and unpretending a work to be worthy of that honour.
Still, I have done what I can to make it a vehicle for communicating a
taste for the higher branches of Natural History, and I know that you
will judge it only too favourably. We are in the middle of the second
volume, and if the printers will get on, shall be out next month.
Have you seen in the last number of the _Quarterly Journal of Science_
the excellent remarks on _Fraser's_ article on Natural Selection failing
as to Man? In one page it gets to the heart of the question, and I have
written to the editor to ask who the author is.
My friend Spruce's paper on Palms is to be read to-morrow evening at the
Linnean. He tells me it contains a discovery which he calls "alteration
of function." He found a clump of Geonema all of which were females, and
the next year the same clump were all males! He has found other facts
analogous to this, and I have no doubt the subject is one that will
interest you.
Hoping you are pretty well and are getting on steadily with your next
volumes, and with kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and all your circle,
believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.--Have you seen the admirable article in the _Guardian_ (!) on
Lyell's "Principles"? It is most excellent and liberal. It is written by
the Rev. Geo. Buckle, of Tiverton Vicarage, Bath, whom I met at Norwich
and found a thoroughly scientific and liberal parson. Perhaps you have
heard that I have undertaken to write an article for the _Quarterly_ (!)
on the same subject, to make up for that on "Modern Geology" last year
not mentioning Sir C. Lyell.
Really, what with the Tories passing Radical Reform Bills and the Church
periodicals advocating Darwinianism, the millennium must be at
hand.--A.R.W.
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 22, 1869._
My dear Wallace,--Your intended dedication pleases me much and I look at
it as a _great_ honour, and this is nothing more than the truth. I am
glad to hear, for Lyell's sake and on general grounds, that you are
going to write in the _Quarterly_. Some little time ago I was actually
wishing that you wrote in the _Quarterly_, as I knew that you
occasionally contributed to periodicals, and I thought that your
articles would thus be more widely read.
Thank you for telling me about the _Guardian_, which I will borrow from
Lyell. I did note the article in the _Quarterly Journal of Science_ and
put it aside to read again with the articles in _Fraser_ and the
_Spectator_.
I have been interrupted in my regular work in preparing a new edition[74]
of the "Origin," which has cost me much labour, and which I hope I have
considerably improved in two or three important points. I always thought
individual differences more important than single variations, but now I
have come to the conclusion that they are of paramount importance, and
in this I believe I agree with you. Fleeming Jenkin's arguments have
convinced me.[75]
I heartily congratulate you on your new book being so nearly
finished.--Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 30, 1869._
Dear Darwin,--Will you tell me _where_ are Fleeming Jenkin's arguments
on the importance of single variation? Because I at present hold most
strongly the contrary opinion, that it is the individual differences or
_general variability_ of species that enables them to become modified
and adapted to new conditions.
Variations or "sports" may be important in modifying an animal in one
direction, as in colour for instance, but how it can possibly work in
changes requiring co-ordination of many parts, as in Orchids for
example, I cannot conceive. And as all the more important structural
modifications of animals and plants imply much co-ordination, it appears
to me that the chances are millions to one against _individual
variations_ ever coinciding so as to render the required modification
possible. However, let me read first what has convinced you.
You may tell Mrs. Darwin that I have now a daughter.
Give my kind regards to her and all your family.--Very truly yours,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. February 2, 1869._
My dear Wallace,--I must have expressed myself atrociously; I meant to
say exactly the reverse of what you have understood. F. Jenkin argued in
the _North British Review_[76] against single variations ever being
perpetuated, and has convinced me, though not in quite so broad a manner
as here put. I always thought individual differences more important, but
I was blind and thought that single variations might be preserved much
oftener than I now see is possible or probable. I mentioned this in my
former note merely because I believed that you had come to similar
conclusions, and I like much to be in accord with you. I believe I was
mainly deceived by single variations offering such simple illustrations,
as when man selects.
We heartily congratulate you on the birth of your little
daughter.--Yours very sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 5, 1869._
My dear Wallace,--I was delighted at receiving your book[77] this
morning. The whole appearance and the illustrations with which it [is]
so profusely ornamented are quite beautiful. Blessings on you and your
publisher for having the pages cut and gilded.
As for the dedication, putting quite aside how far I deserve what you
say, it seems to me decidedly the best expressed dedication which I have
ever met.
The reading will probably last me a month, for I dare not have it read
aloud, as I know that it will set me thinking.
I see that many points will interest me greatly. When I have finished,
if I have anything particular to say, I will write again. Accept my
cordial thanks. The dedication is a thing for my children's children to
be proud of.--Yours most sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. March 10, 1869._
Dear Darwin,--Thanks for your kind note. I could not persuade Mr.
Macmillan to cut more than twenty-five copies for my own friends, and he
even seemed to think this a sign of most strange and barbarous taste.
Mr. Weir's paper on the kinds of larvæ, etc., eaten or rejected by
insectivorous birds was read at the last meeting of the Entomological
Society and was most interesting and satisfactory. His observations and
experiments, so far as they have yet gone, confirm in _every instance_
my hypothetical explanation of the colours of caterpillars. He finds
that all nocturnal-feeding obscure-coloured caterpillars, all _green_
and _brown_ and _mimicking_ caterpillars, are greedily eaten by almost
every insectivorous bird. On the other hand, every gaily coloured,
spotted or banded species, which never conceal themselves, and all spiny
and hairy kinds, are _invariably rejected_, either without or after
trial. He has also come to the curious and rather unexpected conclusion,
that hairy and spiny caterpillars are not protected by their hairs, but
by their nauseous taste, the hairs being merely an external mark of
their uneatableness, like the gay colours of others. He deduces this
from two kinds of facts: (1) that very young caterpillars before the
hairs are developed are equally rejected, and (2) that in many cases the
smooth pupæ and even the perfect insects of the same species are equally
rejected.
His facts, it is true, are at present not very numerous, but they all
point one way. They seem to me to lend an immense support to my view of
the great importance of protection in determining colour, for it has not
only prevented the eatable species from ever acquiring bright colours,
spots, or markings injurious to them, but it has also conferred on all
the nauseous species distinguishing marks to render their uneatableness
more protective to them than it would otherwise be. When you have read
my book I shall be glad of any hints for corrections if it comes to
another edition. I was horrified myself by coming accidentally on
several verbal inelegancies after all my trouble in correcting, and I
have no doubt there are many more important errors.--Believe me, dear
Darwin, yours very truly,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 22, 1869._
My dear Wallace,--I have finished your book.[78] It seems to me
excellent, and at the same time most pleasant to read. That you ever
returned alive is wonderful after all your risks from illness and sea
voyages, especially that most interesting one to Waigiou and back. Of
all the impressions which I have received from your book, the strongest
is that your perseverance in the cause of science was heroic. Your
descriptions of catching the splendid butterflies have made me quite
envious, and at the same time have made me feel almost young again, so
vividly have they brought before my mind old days when I collected,
though I never made such captures as yours. Certainly collecting is the
best sport in the world. I shall be astonished if your book has not a
great success; and your splendid generalisations on geographical
distribution, with which I am familiar from your papers, will be new to
most of your readers. I think I enjoyed most the Timor case, as it is
best demonstrated; but perhaps Celebes is really the most valuable. I
should prefer looking at the whole Asiatic continent as having formerly
been more African in its fauna, than admitting the former existence of a
continent across the Indian Ocean. Decaisne's paper on the flora of
Timor, in which he points out its close relation to that of the
Mascarene Islands, supports your view. On the other hand, I might
advance the giraffes, etc., in the Sewalik deposits. How I wish someone
would collect the plants of Banca! The puzzle of Java, Sumatra and
Borneo is like the three geese and foxes: I have a wish to extend
Malacca through Banca to part of Java and thus make three parallel
peninsulas, but I cannot get the geese and foxes across the river.
Many parts of your book have interested me much: I always wished to
hear an independent judgment about the Rajah Brooke, and now I have been
delighted with your splendid eulogium on him.
With respect to the fewness and inconspicuousness of the flowers in the
tropics, may it not be accounted for by the hosts of insects, so that
there is no need for the flowers to be conspicuous? As, according to
Humboldt, fewer plants are social in the tropical than in the temperate
regions, the flowers in the former would not make so great a show.
In your note you speak of observing some inelegancies of style. I notice
none. All is as clear as daylight. I have detected two or three errata.
In Vol. I. you write lond_i_acus: is this not an error?
Vol. II., p. 236: for _western_ side of Aru read _eastern_.
Page 315: Do you not mean the horns of the moose? For the elk has not
palmated horns.
I have only one criticism of a general nature, and I am not sure that
other geologists would agree with me: you repeatedly speak as if the
pouring out of lava, etc., from volcanoes actually caused the subsidence
of an adjoining area. I quite agree that areas undergoing opposite
movements are somehow connected; but volcanic outbursts must, I think,
be looked at as mere accidents in the swelling tip of a great dome or
surface of _plutonic_ rocks; and there seems no more reason to conclude
that such swelling or elevation in mass is the cause of the subsidence
than that the subsidence is the cause of the elevation; which latter
view is indeed held by some geologists, I have regretted to find so
little about the habits of the many animals which you have seen.
In Vol. II., p. 399, I wish I could see the connection between
variations having been first or long ago selected, and their appearance
at an earlier age in birds of paradise than the variations which have
subsequently arisen and been selected. In fact, I do not understand your
explanation of the curious order of development of the ornaments of
these birds.
Will you please to tell me whether you are sure that the female
Casuarius (Vol. II., p. 150) sits on her eggs as well as the male?--for,
if I am not mistaken, Bartlett told me that the male alone, who is less
brightly coloured about the neck, sits on the eggs. In Vol. II., p. 255,
you speak of male savages ornamenting themselves more than the women, of
which I have heard before; now, have you any notion whether they do this
to please themselves, or to excite the admiration of their fellow-men,
or to please the women, or, as is perhaps probable, from all three
motives?
Finally, let me congratulate you heartily on having written so excellent
a book, full of thought on all sorts of subjects. Once again, let me
thank you for the very great honour which you have done me by your
dedication.--Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
Vol. II., p. 455: When in New Zealand I thought the inhabitants a mixed
race, with the type of Tahiti preponderating over some darker race with
more frizzled hair; and now that the stone instruments [have] revealed
the existence of ancient inhabitants, is it not probable that these
islands were inhabited by true Papuans? Judging from descriptions the
pure Tahitans must differ much from your Papuans.
* * * * *
The reference in the following letter is to Wallace's review, in the
April number of the _Quarterly_, of Lyell's "Principles of Geology"
(tenth edition), and of the sixth edition of the "Elements of Geology."
Wallace points out that here for the first time Sir C. Lyell gave up his
opposition to Evolution; and this leads Wallace to give a short account
of the views set forth in the "Origin of Species." In this article
Wallace makes a definite statement as to his views on the evolution of
man, which were opposed to those of Darwin. He upholds the view that the
brain of man, as well as the organs of speech, the hand and the external
form, could not have been evolved by Natural Selection (the "child" he
is supposed to "murder "). At p. 391 he writes: "In the brain of the
lowest savages and, as far as we know, of the prehistoric races, we have
an organ ... little inferior in size and complexity to that of the
highest types.... But the mental requirements of the lowest savages,
such as the Australians or the Andaman Islanders, are very little above
those of many animals.... How then was an organ developed far beyond the
needs of its possessor? Natural Selection could only have endowed the
savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he
actually possesses one but very little inferior to that of the average
members of our learned societies."
This passage is marked in Darwin's copy with a triply underlined "No,"
and with a shower of notes of exclamation. It was probably the first
occasion on which he realised the extent of this great and striking
divergence in opinion between himself and his colleague. He had,
however, some indication of it in Wallace's paper on Man in the
_Anthropological Review_, 1864, referred to in his letter to Wallace of
May 28, 1864, and again in that of April 14, 1869.
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 27, 1869._
My dear Wallace,--I must send a line to thank you, but this note will
require no answer. This very morning after writing I found that "elk"
was used for "moose" in Sweden, but I had been reading lately about elk
and moose in North America.
As you put the case in your letter, which I think differs somewhat from
your book, I am inclined to agree, and had thought that a feather could
hardly be increased in length until it had first grown to full length,
and therefore it would be increased late in life and transmitted to a
corresponding age. But the Crossoptilon pheasant, and even the common
pheasant, show that the tail feathers can be developed very early.
Thanks for other facts, which I will reflect on when I go again over my
MS.
I read all that you said about the Dutch Government with much interest,
but I do not feel I know enough to form any opinion against yours.
I shall be intensely curious to read the _Quarterly_: I hope you have
not murdered too completely your own and my child.
I have lately, i.e. in the new edition of the "Origin,"[79] 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 Nägeli'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. It
will be curious if we have hit on similar conclusions. You are about the
last man in England who would deviate a hair's breadth from his
conviction to please any editor in the world.--Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
P.S.--After all, I have thought of one question, but if I receive no
answer I shall understand that (as is probable) you have nothing to say.
I have seen it remarked that the men and women of certain tribes differ
a little in shade or tint; but have you ever seen or heard of any
difference in tint between the two sexes which did not appear to follow
from a difference in habits of life?
* * * * *
_Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 14, 1869._
My dear Wallace,--I have been wonderfully interested by your article,[80]
and I should think Lyell will be much gratified by it. I declare if I
had been editor and had the power of directing you I should have
selected for discussion the very points which you have chosen. I have
often said to younger geologists (for I began in the year 1830) that
they did not know what a revolution Lyell had effected; nevertheless,
your extracts from Cuvier have quite astonished me.
Though not able really to judge, I am inclined to put more confidence in
Croll than you seem to do; but I have been much struck by many of your
remarks on degradation.
Thomson's views of the recent age of the world have been for some time
one of my sorest troubles, and so I have been glad to read what you say.
Your exposition of Natural Selection seems to me inimitably good; there
never lived a better expounder than you.
I was also much pleased at your discussing the difference between our
views and Lamarck's. One sometimes sees the odious expression, "Justice
to myself compels me to say, etc.," but you are the only man I ever
heard of who persistently does himself an injustice and never demands
justice. Indeed, you ought in the review to have alluded to your paper
in the Linnean _Journal_, and I feel sure all our friends will agree in
this, but you cannot "Burke" yourself, however much you may try, as may
be seen in half the articles which appear.
I was asked but the other day by a German professor for your paper,
which I sent him. Altogether, I look at your article as appearing in the
_Quarterly_ as an immense triumph for our cause. I presume that your
remarks on Man are those to which you alluded in your note.
If you had not told me I should have thought that they had been added by
someone else. As you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am
very sorry for it.
I can see no necessity for calling in an additional and proximate cause
in regard to Man. But the subject is too long for a letter.
I have been particularly glad to read your discussion, because I am now
writing and thinking much about Man.
I hope that your Malay book sells well. I was extremely pleased with the
article in the _Q.J. of Science_, inasmuch as it is thoroughly
appreciative of your work. Alas! you will probably agree with what the
writer says about the uses of the bamboo.
I hear that there is also a good article in the _Saturday Review_, but
have heard nothing more about it.--Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours
ever sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
P.S.--I have had a baddish fall, my horse partly rolling over me; but I
am getting rapidly well.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. April 18, 1869._
Dear Darwin,--I am very glad you think I have done justice to Lyell, and
have also well "exposed" (as a Frenchman would say) Natural Selection.
There is nothing I like better than writing a little account of it, and
trying to make it clear to the meanest capacity.
The "Croll" question is awfully difficult. I had gone into it more
fully, but the Editor made me cut out eight pages.
I am very sorry indeed to hear of your accident, but trust you will soon
recover and that it will leave no bad effects.
I can quite comprehend your feelings with regard to my "unscientific"
opinions as to Man, because a few years back I should myself have
looked at them as equally wild and uncalled for. I shall look with
extreme interest for what you are writing on Man, and shall give full
weight to any explanations you can give of his probable origin. My
opinions on the subject have been modified solely by the consideration
of a series of remarkable phenomena, physical and mental, which I have
now had every opportunity of fully testing, and which demonstrate the
existence of forces and influences not yet recognised by science. This
will, I know, seem to you like some mental hallucination, but as I can
assure you from personal communication with them, that Robert Chambers,
Dr. Norris of Birmingham, the well-known physiologist, and C.F. Varley,
the well-known electrician, who have all investigated the subject for
years, agree with me both as to the facts and as to the main inferences
to be drawn from them, I am in hopes that you will suspend your judgment
for a time till we exhibit some corroborative symptoms of insanity.
In the meantime I can console you by the assurance that I _don't_ agree
with the _Q.J. of Science_ about bamboo, and that I see no cause to
modify any of my opinions expressed in my article on the "Reign of
Law."--Believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. June 23, 1869._
Dear Darwin,--Thank you very much for the copy of your fifth edition of
the "Origin." I have not yet read all the additions, but those I have
looked at seem very interesting, though somewhat brief, but I suppose
you are afraid of its great and rapid growth.
A difficult sexual character seems to me the plumules or battledore
scales on the wings of certain families and genera of butterflies,
almost invariably changing in form with the species and genera in
proportion to other changes, and always constant in each species yet
confined to the males, and so small and mixed up with the other scales
as to produce no effect on the colour or marking of the wings. How could
sexual selection produce them?
Your correspondent Mr. Geach is now in England, and if you would like to
see him I am sure he would be glad to meet you. He is staying with his
brother (address Guildford), but often comes to town.
Hoping that you have quite recovered from your accident and that the
_great work_ is progressing, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very
faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.--You will perhaps be pleased to hear that German, French, and
Danish translations of my "Malay Archipelago" are in progress.--A.R.W.
* * * * *
_Caerleon, Barmouth, N. Wales. June 25, 1869._
My dear Wallace,--We have been here a fortnight, and shall remain here
till the beginning of August. I can say nothing good about my health,
and I am so weak that I can hardly crawl half a mile from the house; but
I hope I may improve, and anyhow the magnificent view of Cader is
enjoyable.
I do not know that I have anything to ask Mr. Geach, nor do I suppose I
shall be in London till late in the autumn, but I should be particularly
obliged, if you have any communication with Mr. Geach, if you would
express for me my _sincere_ thanks for his kindness in sending me the
very valuable answers on Expression. I wrote some months ago to him in
answer to his last letter.
I would ask him to Down, but the fatigue to me of receiving a stranger
is something which to you would be utterly unintelligible.
I think I have heard of the scales on butterflies; but there are lots
of sexual characters which quite baffle all powers of even conjecture.
You are quite correct, that I felt forced to make all additions to the
"Origin" as short as possible.
I am indeed pleased to hear, and fully expected, that your Malay work
would be known throughout Europe.
Oh dear! what would I not give for a little more strength to get on with
my work.--Ever yours,
C. DARWIN.
I wish that you could have told me that your place in the new Museum was
all settled.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. October 20, 1869._
Dear Darwin,--I do not know your son's (Mr. George Darwin's) address at
Cambridge. Will you be so good as to forward him the enclosed note
begging for a little information?
I was delighted to see the notice in the _Academy_ that you are really
going to bring out your book on Man. I anticipate for it an enormous
sale, and shall read it with intense interest, although I expect to find
in it more to differ from than in any of your other books. Some
reasonable and reasoning opponents are now taking the field. I have been
writing a little notice of Murphy's "Habit and Intelligence," which,
with much that is strange and unintelligible, contains some very acute
criticisms and the statement of a few real difficulties. Another article
just sent me from the _Month_ contains some good criticism. How
incipient organs can be useful is a real difficulty, so is the
independent origin of similar complex organs; but most of his other
points, though well put, are not very formidable. I am trying to begin a
little book on the Distribution of Animals, but I fear I shall not make
much of it from my idleness in collecting facts.
I shall make it a popular sketch first, and, if it succeeds, gather
materials for enlarging it at a future time. If any suggestion occurs to
you as to the kind of maps that would be best, or on any other essential
point, I should be glad of a hint. I hope your residence in Wales did
you good. I had no idea you were so near Dolgelly till I met your son
there one evening when I was going to leave the next morning. It is a
glorious country, but the time I like is May and June--the foliage is so
glorious.
Sincerely hoping you are pretty well, and with kind regards to Mrs.
Darwin and the rest of your family, believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. October 21, 1869._
My dear Wallace,--I forwarded your letter at once to my son George, but
I am nearly sure that he will not be able to tell you anything; I wish
he could for my own sake; but I suspect there are few men in England who
could. Pray send me a copy or tell me where your article on Murphy will
be published. I have just received the _Month_, but have only read half
as yet. I wish I knew who was the author; you ought to know, as he
admires you so much; he has a wonderful deal of knowledge, but his
difficulties have not troubled me much as yet, except the case of the
dipterous larva. My book will not be published for a long time, but
Murray wished to insert some notice of it. Sexual selection has been a
tremendous job. Fate has ordained that almost every point on which we
differ should be crowded into this vol. Have you seen the October number
of the _Revue des deux Mondes?_ It has an article on you, but I have not
yet read it; and another article, not yet read, by a very good man on
the Transformist School.
I am very glad to hear that you are beginning a book, but do not let it
be "little," on Distribution, etc. I have no hints to give about maps;
the subject would require long and anxious consideration. Before Forbes
published his essay on Distribution and the Glacial Period I wrote out
and had _copied_ an essay on the same subject, which Hooker read. If
this MS. would be of any use to you, _on account of the references_ in
it to papers, etc., I should be very glad to lend it, to be used in any
way; for I foresee that my strength will never last out to come to this
subject.
I have been pretty well since my return from Wales, though at the time
it did me no good.
We shall be in London next month, when I shall hope to see you.--My dear
Wallace, yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. December 4, [1869]._
Dear Darwin,--Dr. Adolf Bernhard Meyer, who translated my book into
German, has written to me for permission to translate my original paper
in the _Linnean Proceedings_ with yours, and wants to put my photograph
and yours in it. If you have given him permission to translate the
papers (which I suppose he can do without permission if he pleases), I
write to ask which of your photographs you would wish to represent you
in Germany--the last, or the previous one by Ernest Edwards, which I
think much the best--as if you like I will undertake to order them and
save you any more trouble about it. It is, of course, out of the
question our meeting to be photographed together, as Mr. Meyer coolly
proposes.
Hoping you are well, believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.--I have written a paper on Geological Time, which will appear in
_Nature_, and I _think_ I have hit upon a solution of your greatest
difficulties in that matter.--A.R.W.
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. December 5, 1869._
My dear Wallace,--I wrote to Dr. Meyer that the photographs in England
would cost much and that they did not seem to me worth the cost to him,
but that I of course had no sort of objection. I should be greatly
obliged if you would kindly take the trouble to order any one which you
think best: possibly it would be best to wait, unless you feel sure,
till you hear again from Dr. M. I sent him a copy of our joint paper. He
has kindly sent me the translation of your book, which is splendidly got
up, and which I thought I could not better use than by sending it to
Fritz Müller in Brazil, who will appreciate it.
I liked your reviews on Mr. Murphy very much; they are capitally
written, like everything which is turned out of your workshop. I was
specially glad about the eye. If you agree with me, take some
opportunity of bringing forward the case of perfected greyhound or
racehorse, in proof of the possibility of the selection of many
correlated variations. I have remarks on this head in my last book.
If you throw light on the want of geological time, may honour, eternal
glory and blessings crowd thick on your head.--Yours most sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
I forgot to say that I wrote to Dr. M. to say that I should not soon be
in London, and that, of all things in the world, I hate most the bother
of sitting for photographs, so I declined with many apologies. I have
recently refused several applications.
* * * * *
_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 22, 1870._
Dear Darwin,--My paper on Geological Time having been in type nearly two
months, and not knowing when it will appear, I have asked for a proof to
send you, Huxley and Lyell. The latter part only contains what I think
is new, and I shall be anxious to hear if it at all helps to get over
your difficulties.
I have been lately revising and adding to my various papers bearing on
the "Origin of Species," etc., and am going to print them in a volume
immediately, under the title of "Contributions to the Theory of Natural
Selection: A Series of Essays."
In the last, I put forth my heterodox opinions as to Man, and even
venture to attack the Huxleyan philosophy!
Hoping you are quite well and are getting on with your Man book, believe
me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.--When you have read the proof and done with it, may I beg you to
return it to me?--A.R.W.
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. January 26, [1870]._
My dear Wallace,--I have been very much struck by your whole article
(returned by this post), especially as to rate of denudation, for the
still glaciated surfaces have of late most perplexed me. Also
_especially_ on the lesser mutations of climate during the last 60,000
years; for I quite think with you no cause so powerful in inducing
specific changes, through the consequent migrations. Your argument would
be somewhat strengthened about organic changes having been formerly more
rapid, if Sir W. Thomson is correct that physical changes were formerly
more violent and abrupt.
The whole subject is so new and vast that I suppose you hardly expect
anyone to be at once convinced, but that he should keep your view before
his mind and let it ferment. This, I think, everyone will be forced to
do. I have not as yet been able to digest the fundamental notion of the
shortened age of the sun and earth. Your whole paper seems to me
admirably clear and well put. I may remark that Rütimeyer has shown that
several wild mammals in Switzerland since the neolithic period have had
their dentition and, I _think_, general size _slightly_ modified. I
cannot believe that the Isthmus of Panama has been open since the
commencement of the glacial period; for, notwithstanding the fishes, so
few shells, crustaceans, and, according to Agassiz, not one echinoderm
is common to the sides. I am very glad you are going to publish all your
papers on Natural Selection: I am sure you are right, and that they will
do our cause much good.
But I groan over Man--you write like a metamorphosed (in retrograde
direction) naturalist, and you the author of the best paper that ever
appeared in the _Anthropological Review_! Eheu! Eheu! Eheu!--Your
miserable friend,
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent. March 31, 1870._
My dear Wallace,--Many thanks for the woodcut, which, judging from the
rate at which I crawl on, will hardly be wanted till this time next
year. Whether I shall have it reduced, or beg Mr. Macmillan for a
stereotype, as you said I might, I have not yet decided.
I heartily congratulate you on your removal being over, and I much more
heartily condole with myself at your having left London, for I shall
thus miss my talks with you which I always greatly enjoy.
I was excessively pleased at your review of Galton, and I agree to every
word of it. I must add that I have just re-read your article in the
_Anthropological Review_, and _I defy_ you to upset your own
doctrine.--Ever yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent. April 20, [1870]._
My dear Wallace,--I have just received your book ["Natural
Selection"][81] and read the preface. There never has been passed on me,
or indeed on anyone, a higher eulogium than yours. I wish that I fully
deserved it. Your modesty and candour are very far from new to me. I
hope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect--and very few things in my
life have been more satisfactory to me--that we have never felt any
jealousy towards each other, though in one sense rivals. I believe that
I can say this of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that it is
true of you.
You have been a good Christian to give a list of your additions, for I
want much to read them, and I should hardly have had time just at
present to have gone through all your articles.
Of course, I shall immediately read those that are new or greatly
altered, and I will endeavour to be as honest as can reasonably be
expected. Your book looks remarkably well got up.--Believe me, my dear
Wallace, to remain yours very cordially,
CH. DARWIN
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. June 5, 1870._
My dear Wallace,--As imitation and protection are your subjects I have
thought that you would like to possess the enclosed curious drawing. The
note tells all I know about it.--Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN
P.S.--I read not long ago a German article on the colours of _female_
birds, and that author leaned rather strongly to your side about
nidification. I forget who the author was, but he seemed to know a good
deal.--C.D.
* * * * *
_Holly House, Barking, E. July 6, 1870._
Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for the drawing. I must say, however, the
resemblance to a snake is not very striking, unless to a cobra not found
in America. It is also evident that it is not Mr. Bates's caterpillar,
as that threw the head backwards so as to show the feet above, forming
imitations of keeled scales.
Claparède has sent me his critique on my book. You will probably have it
too. His arguments in reply to my heresy seem to me of the weakest. I
hear you have gone to press, and I look forward with fear and trembling
to being crushed under a mountain of facts!
I hear you were in town the other day. When you are again, I should be
glad to come at any convenient hour and give you a call.
Hoping your health is improving, and with kind remembrances to Mrs.
Darwin and all your family, believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
In "My Life" (Vol. II., p. 7) Wallace wrote: "In the year 1870 Mr. A.W.
Bennett read a paper before Section D of the British Association at
Liverpool entitled 'The Theory of Natural Selection from a Mathematical
Point of View,' and this paper was printed in full in _Nature_ of
November 10, 1870. To this I replied on November 17, and my reply so
pleased Mr. Darwin that he at once wrote to me as follows:"
_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. November 22, 1870._
My dear Wallace,--I must ease myself by writing a few words to say how
much I and all others in this house admire your article in _Nature_. You
are certainly an unparalleled master in lucidly stating a case and in
arguing. Nothing ever was better done than your argument about the term
"origin of species," and the consequences about much being gained, even
if we know nothing about precise cause of each variation. By chance I
have given a few words in my first volume, now some time printed off,
about mimetic butterflies, and have touched on two of your points, viz.
on species already widely dissimilar not being made to resemble each
other, and about the variations in Lepidoptera being often well
pronounced. How strange it is that Mr. Bennett or anyone else should
bring in the action of the mind as a leading cause of variation, seeing
the beautiful and complex adaptations and modifications of structure in
plants, which I do not suppose they would say had minds.
I have finished the first volume, and am half-way through the first
proof of the second volume, of my confounded book, which half kills me
by fatigue, and which I much fear will quite kill me in your good
estimation.
If you have leisure I should much like a little news of you and your
doings and your family.--Ever yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_Holly House, Barking, E. November 24, 1870._
Dear Darwin,--Your letter gave me very great pleasure. We still agree, I
am sure, on nineteen points out of twenty, and on the twentieth I am not
inconvincible. But then I must be convinced by facts and arguments, not
by high-handed ridicule such as Claparède's.
I hope you see the difference between such criticisms as his, and that
in the last number of the _North American Review_, where my last chapter
is really criticised, point by point; and though I think some of it very
weak, I admit that some is very strong, and almost converts me from the
error of my ways.
As to your new book, I am sure it will not make me think less highly of
you than I do, unless you do, what you have never done yet, ignore
facts and arguments that go against you.
I am doing nothing just now but writing articles and putting down
anti-Darwinians, being dreadfully ridden upon by a horrid
old-man-of-the-sea, who has agreed to let me have the piece of land I
have set my heart on, and which I have been trying to get of him since
last February, but who will not answer letters, will not sign an
agreement, and keeps me week after week in anxiety, though I have
accepted his own terms unconditionally, one of which is that I pay rent
from last Michaelmas! And now the finest weather for planting is going
by. It is a bit of a wilderness that can be made into a splendid
imitation of a Welsh valley in little, and will enable me to gather
round me all the beauties of the temperate flora which I so much admire,
or I would not put up with the little fellow's ways. The fixing on a
residence for the rest of your life is an important event, and I am not
likely to be in a very settled frame of mind for some time.
I am answering A. Murray's Geographical Distribution of Coleoptera for
my Entomological Society Presidential Address, and am printing a second
edition of my "Essays," with a few notes and additions. Very glad to see
(by your writing yourself) that you are better, and with kind regards to
all your family, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Holly House, Barking, E. January 27, 1871._
Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your first volume,[82] which I have just
finished reading through with the greatest pleasure and interest, and I
have also to thank you for the great tenderness with which you have
treated me and my heresies.
On the subject of sexual selection and protection you do not yet
convince me that I am wrong, but I expect your heaviest artillery will
be brought up in your second volume, and I may have to capitulate. You
seem, however, to have somewhat misunderstood my exact meaning, and I do
not think the difference between us is quite so great as you seem to
think it. There are a number of passages in which you argue against the
view that the female has, in any large number of cases, been "specially
modified" for protection, or that _colour_ has _generally_ been obtained
by either sex for purposes of protection.
But my view is, and I thought I had made it clear, that the female has
(in most cases) been simply prevented from acquiring the gay tints of
the male (even when there was a tendency for her to inherit it) because
it was hurtful; and, that when protection is not needed, gay colours are
so generally acquired by both sexes as to show that inheritance by both
sexes of colour variations is the most usual, when _not prevented from
acting_ by Natural Selection.
The colour itself may be acquired either by sexual selection or by other
unknown causes. There are, however, difficulties in the very wide
application you give to sexual selection which at present stagger me,
though no one was or is more ready than myself to admit the perfect
truth of the principle or the immense importance and great variety of
its applications. Your chapters on Man are of intense interest, but as
touching my special heresy not as yet altogether convincing, though of
course I fully agree with every word and every argument which goes to
prove the "evolution" or "development" of man out of a lower form. My
only difficulties are as to whether you have accounted for _every_ step
of the development by ascertained laws. Feeling sure that the book will
keep up and increase your high reputation and be immensely successful,
as it deserves to be, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. January 30, 1871._
My dear Wallace,--Your note has given me very great pleasure, chiefly
because I was so anxious not to treat you with the least disrespect, and
it is so difficult to speak fairly when differing from anyone. If I had
offended you, it would have grieved me more than you will readily
believe. Secondly, I am greatly pleased to hear that Vol. I. interests
you; I have got so sick of the whole subject that I felt in utter doubt
about the value of any part. I intended when speaking of the female not
having been specially modified for protection to include the prevention
of characters acquired by the [male symbol] being transmitted to the
[female symbol]; but I now see it would have been better to have said
"specially acted on," or some such term. Possibly my intention may be
clearer in Vol. II. Let me say that my conclusions are chiefly founded
on a consideration of all animals taken in a body, bearing in mind how
common the rules of sexual differences appear to be in all classes. The
first copy of the chapter on Lepidoptera agreed pretty closely with you.
I then worked on, came back to Lepidoptera, and thought myself compelled
to alter it, finished sexual selection, and for the last time went over
Lepidoptera, and again I felt forced to alter it.
I hope to God there will be nothing disagreeable to you in Vol. II., and
that I have spoken fairly of your views. I feel the more fearful on this
head, because I have just read (but not with sufficient care) Mivart's
book,[83] and I feel _absolutely certain_ that he meant to be fair (but
he was stimulated by theological fervour); yet I do not think he has
been quite fair: he gives in one place only half of one of my sentences,
ignores in many places all that I have said on effects of use, speaks of
my dogmatic assertion, "of false belief," whereas the end of paragraph
seems to me to render the sentence by no means dogmatic or arrogant;
etc. etc. I have since its publication received some quite charming
letters from him.
What an ardent (and most justly) admirer he is of you. His work, I do
not doubt, will have a most potent influence versus Natural Selection.
The pendulum will now swing against us. The part which, I think, will
have most influence is when he gives whole series of cases, like that of
whalebone, in which we cannot explain the gradational steps; but such
cases have no weight on my mind--if a few fish were extinct, who on
earth would have ventured even to conjecture that lung had originated in
swim-bladder? In such a case as Thylacines, I think he was bound to say
that the resemblance of the jaw to that of the dog is superficial; the
number and correspondence and development of teeth being widely
different. I think, again, when speaking of the necessity of altering a
number of characters together, he ought to have thought of man having
power by selection to modify simultaneously or almost simultaneously
many points, as in making a greyhound or racehorse--as enlarged upon in
my "Domestic Animals."
Mivart is savage or contemptuous about my "moral sense," and so probably
will you be. I am extremely pleased that he agrees with my position, _as
far as animal nature is concerned_, of man in the series; or, if
anything, thinks I have erred in making him too distinct.
Forgive me for scribbling at such length.
You have put me quite in good spirits, I did so dread having been
unintentionally unfair towards your views. I hope earnestly the second
volume will escape as well. I care now very little what others say. As
for our not quite agreeing, really in such complex subjects it is almost
impossible for two men who arrive independently at their conclusions to
agree fully--it would be unnatural for them to do so.--Yours ever very
sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_Holly House, Barking, E. March 11, 1871._
Dear Darwin,--I need not say that I read your second volume with, if
possible, a greater interest than the first, as so many topics of
special interest to me are treated of. You will not be surprised to find
that you have not convinced me on the "female protection" question, but
you _will_ be surprised to hear that I do not despair of convincing you.
I have been writing, as you are aware, a review for the _Academy_, which
I tried to refuse doing, but the Editor used as an argument the
statement that you wished me to do so. It is not an easy job fairly to
summarise such a book, but I hope I have succeeded tolerably. When I got
to discussion, I felt more at home, but I most sincerely trust that I
may not have let pass any word that may seem to you in the least too
strong.
You have not written a word about me that I could wish altered, but as I
know you wish me to be candid with you, I will mention that you have
quoted one passage in a note (p. 376, Vol. II.) which seems to me a
caricature of anything I have written.
Now let me ask you to rejoice with me, for I have got my chalk pit, and
am hard at work engineering a road up its precipitous slopes. I hope you
may be able to come and see me there some day, as it is an easy ride
from London, and I shall be anxious to know if it is equal to the pit in
the wilds of Kent Mrs. Darwin mentioned when I lunched with you. Should
your gardener in the autumn have any thinnings out of almost any kind
of hardy plants they would be welcome, as I have near four acres of
ground in which I want to substitute ornamental plants for weeds.
With best wishes, and hoping you may have health and strength to go on
with your great work, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
My review will appear next Wednesday.
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. March 16, 1871._
My dear Wallace,--I have just read your grand review.[84] It is in every
way as kindly expressed towards myself as it is excellent in matter. The
Lyells have been here, and Sir C. remarked that no one wrote such good
scientific reviews as you, and, as Miss Buckley added, you delight in
picking out all that is good, though very far from blind to the bad. In
all this I most entirely agree. I shall always consider your review as a
great honour, and however much my book may hereafter be abused, as no
doubt it will be, your review will console me, notwithstanding that we
differ so greatly.
I will keep your objections to my views in my mind, but I fear that the
latter are almost stereotyped in my mind, I thought for long weeks about
the inheritance and selection difficulty, and covered quires of paper
with notes, in trying to get out of it, but could not, though clearly
seeing that it would be a great relief if I could. I will confine myself
to two or three remarks. I have been much impressed with what you urge
against colour[85] in the case of insects having been acquired through
sexual selection. I always saw that the evidence was very weak; but I
still think, if it be admitted that the musical instruments of insects
have been gained through sexual selection, that there is not the least
improbability in colour having been thus gained. Your argument with
respect to the denudation of mankind, and also to insects, that taste on
the part of one sex would have to remain nearly the same during many
generations, in order that sexual selection should produce any effect, I
agree to, and I think this argument would be sound if used by one who
denied that, for instance, the plumes of birds of paradise had been so
gained.
I believe that you admit this, and if so I do not see how your argument
applies in other cases. I have recognised for some short time that I
have made a great omission in not having discussed, as far as I could,
the acquisition of taste, its inherited nature, and its permanence
within pretty close limits for long periods.
One other point and I have done: I see by p. 179 of your review that I
must have expressed myself very badly to have led you to think that I
consider the prehensile organs of males as affording evidence of the
females exerting a choice. I have never thought so, and if you chance to
remember the passage (but do not hunt for it), pray point it out to me.
I am extremely sorry that I gave the note from Mr. Stebbing; I thought
myself bound to notice his suggestion of beauty as a cause of
denudation, and thus I was led on to give his argument. I altered the
final passage which seemed to me offensive, and I had misgivings about
the first part.
I heartily wish I had yielded to these misgivings. I will omit in any
future edition the latter half of the note.
I have heard from Miss Buckley that you have got possession of your
chalk pit, and I congratulate you on the tedious delay being over. I
fear all our bushes are so large that there is nothing which we are at
all likely to grub up.
Years ago we threw away loads of things. I should very much like to see
your house and grounds; but I fear the journey would be too long. Going
even to Kew knocks me up, and I have almost ceased trying to do so.
Once again let me thank you warmly for your admirable review.--My dear
Wallace, yours ever very sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
What an excellent address you gave about Madeira, but I wish you had
alluded to Lyell's discussion on land shells, etc.--not that he has said
a word on the subject. The whole address quite delighted me. I hear Mr.
Crotch[86] disputed some of your facts about the wingless insects, but he
is a _crotchety_ man. As far as I remember, I did not venture to ask Mr.
Appleton to get you to review me, but only said, in answer to an
inquiry, that you would undoubtedly be the best, or one of the very few
men who could do so effectively.
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. March 24, 1871._
My dear Wallace,--Very many thanks for the new edition of your Essays.
Honour and glory to you for giving list of additions. It is grand as
showing that our subject flourishes, your book coming to a new edition
so soon. My book also sells immensely; the edition will, I believe, be
6,500 copies. I am tired with writing, for the load of letters which I
receive is enough to make a man cry, yet some few are curious and
valuable. I got one to-day from a doctor on the hair on backs of young
weakly children, which afterwards falls off. Also on hairy idiots. But I
am tired to death, so farewell.
Thanks for your last letter.
There is a very striking second article on my book in the _Pall Mall_.
The articles in the _Spectator_[87] have also interested me much.--Again
farewell.
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_Holly House, Barking, E. May 14, 1871._
Dear Darwin,--Have you read that very remarkable book "The Fuel of the
Sun"? If not, get it. It solves the great problem of the almost
unlimited duration of the sun's heat in what appears to me a most
satisfactory manner. I recommended it to Sir C. Lyell, and he tells me
that Grove spoke very highly of it to him. It has been somewhat ignored
by the critics because it is by a new man with a perfectly original
hypothesis, founded on a vast accumulation of physical and chemical
facts; but not being encumbered with any mathematical shibboleths, they
have evidently been afraid that anything so intelligible could not be
sound. The manner in which everything in physical astronomy is explained
is almost as marvellous as the powers of Natural Selection in the same
way, and naturally excites a suspicion that the respective authors are
pushing their theories "a little too far."
If you read it, get Proctor's book on the Sun at the same time, and
refer to his coloured plates of the protuberances, corona, etc., which
marvellously correspond with what Matthieu Williams's theory requires.
The author is a practical chemist engaged in iron manufacture, and it is
from furnace chemistry that he has been led to the subject. I think it
the most original, most thoughtful and most carefully-worked-out theory
that has appeared for a long time, and it does not say much for the
critics that, as far as I know, its great merits have not been properly
recognised.
I have been so fully occupied with road-making, well-digging, garden-
and house-planning, planting, etc., that I have given up all other work.
Do you not admire our friend Miss Buckley's admirable article in
_Macmillan_? It seems to me the best and most original that has been
written on your book.
Hoping you are well, and are not working too hard, I remain yours very
faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 9, 1871._
My dear Wallace,--I send by this post a review by Chauncey Wright, as I
much want your opinion of it, as soon as you can send it. I consider you
an incomparably better critic than I am. The article, though not very
clearly written, and poor in parts for want of knowledge, seems to me
admirable.
Mivart's book is producing a great effect against Natural Selection, and
more especially against me. Therefore, if you think the article even
somewhat good, I will write and get permission to publish it as a
shilling pamphlet, together with the MS. addition (enclosed), for which
there was not room at the end of the review. I do not suppose I should
lose more than £20 or £30.
I am now at work at a new and cheap edition of the "Origin," and shall
answer several points in Mivart's book and introduce a new chapter for
this purpose; but I treat the subject so much more concretely, and I
daresay less philosophically, than Wright, that we shall not interfere
with each other. You will think me a bigot when I say, after studying
Mivart, I was never before in my life so convinced of the _general_
(i.e. not in detail) truth of the views in the "Origin." I grieve to see
the omission of the words by Mivart, detected by Wright.[88] I complained
to M. that in two cases he quotes only the commencement of sentences by
me and thus modifies my meaning; but I never supposed he would have
omitted words. There are other cases of what I consider unfair
treatment. I conclude with sorrow that though he means to be honourable,
he is so bigoted that he cannot act fairly.
I was glad to see your letter in _Nature_, though I think you were a
little hard on the silly and presumptuous man.
I hope that your house and grounds are progressing well, and that you
are in all ways flourishing.
I have been rather seedy, but a few days in London did me much good; and
my dear good wife is going to take me somewhere, _nolens volens_, at the
end of this month.
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
_Holly Home, Barking, E. July 12, 1871._
Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to read at my
leisure the very talented article of Mr. C. Wright. His criticism of
Mivart, though very severe, is, I think, in most cases sound; but I find
the larger part of the article so heavy and much of the language and
argument so very obscure, that I very much doubt the utility of printing
it separately. I do not think the readers of Mivart could ever read it
in that form, and I am sure your own answer to Mivart's arguments will
be so much more clear and to the point, that the other will be
unnecessary. You might extract certain portions in your own chapter,
such as the very ingenious suggestion as to the possible origin of
mammary glands, as well as the possible use of the rattle of the
rattlesnake, etc.
I cannot see the force of Mivart's objection to the theory of production
of the long neck of the giraffe (suggested in my first Essay), and which
C. Wright seems to admit, while his "watch-tower" theory seems to me
more difficult and unlikely as a means of origin. The argument, "Why
haven't other allied animals been modified in the same way?" seems to me
the weakest of the weak. I must say also I do not see any great reason
to complain of the "words" left out by Mivart, as they do not seem to me
materially to affect the meaning. Your expression, "and tends to depart
in a slight degree," I think hardly grammatical; a _tendency_ to depart
cannot very well be said to be in a slight degree; a _departure_ can,
but a tendency must be either a _slight tendency_ or a _strong
tendency_; the degree to which the departure may reach must depend on
favourable or unfavourable causes in addition to the tendency itself.
Mivart's words, "and tending to depart from the parental type," seem to
me quite unobjectionable as a paraphrase of yours, because the "tending"
is kept in; and your own view undoubtedly is that the tendency may lead
to an ultimate departure to any extent. Mivart's error is to suppose
that your words favour the view of _sudden departures_, and I do not see
that the expression he uses really favours his view a bit more than if
he had quoted your exact words. The expression of yours he relies upon
is evidently "the whole organism seeming to have become plastic," and he
argues, no doubt erroneously, that having so become "plastic," any
amount or a larger amount of sudden variation in some direction is
likely.
Mivart's greatest error, the confounding "individual variations" with
"minute or imperceptible variations," is well exposed by C. Wright, and
that part I should like to see reprinted; but I always thought you laid
too much stress on the slowness of the action of Natural Selection owing
to the smallness and rarity of favourable variations. In your chapter on
Natural Selection the expressions, "extremely slight modifications,"
"every variation even the slightest," "every grade of constitutional
difference," occur, and these have led to errors such as Mivart's, I say
all this because I feel sure that Mivart would be the last to
intentionally misrepresent you, and he has told me that he was sorry the
word "infinitesimal," as applied to variations used by Natural
Selection, got into his book, and that he would alter it, as no doubt he
has done, in his second edition.
Some of Mivart's strongest points--the eye and ear, for instance--are
unnoticed in the review. You will, of course, reply to these. His
statement of the "missing link" argument is also forcible, and has, I
have no doubt, much weight with the public. As to all his minor
arguments, I feel with you that they leave Natural Selection stronger
than ever, while the two or three main arguments do leave a lingering
doubt in my mind of some fundamental organic law of development of which
we have as yet no notion.
Pray do not attach any weight to my opinions as to the review. It is
very clever, but the writer seems a little like those critics who know
an author's or an artist's meaning better than they do themselves.
My house is now in the hands of a contractor, but I am wall-building,
etc., and very busy.--With best wishes, believe me, dear Darwin, yours
very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 12, 1871._
My dear Wallace,--Very many thanks. As soon as I read your letter I
determined, not to print the paper, notwithstanding my eldest daughter,
who is a very good critic, thought it so interesting as to be worth
reprinting. Then my wife came in, and said, "I do not much care about
these things and shall therefore be a good judge whether it is very
dull." So I will leave my decision open for a day or two. Your letter
has been, and will be, of use to me in other ways: thus I had quite
forgotten that you had taken up the case of the giraffe in your first
memoir, and I must look to this. I feel very doubtful how far I shall
succeed in answering Mivart; it is so difficult to answer objections to
doubtful points and make the discussion readable. I shall make only a
selection. The worst of it is that I cannot possibly hunt through all my
references for isolated points; it would take me three weeks of
intolerably hard work. I wish I had your power of arguing clearly. At
present I feel sick of everything, and if I could occupy my time and
forget my daily discomforts or little miseries, I would never publish
another word. But I shall cheer up, I daresay, soon, being only just got
over a bad attack. Farewell. God knows why I bother you about myself.
I can say nothing more about missing links than what I have said. I
should rely much on pre-Silurian times; but then comes Sir W. Thomson
like an odious spectre. Farewell.--Yours most sincerely,