CH. DARWIN.

I was grieved to see in the _Daily News_ that the madman about the flat

earth has been threatening your life. What an odious trouble this must

have been to you.

P.S.--There is a most cutting review of me in the _Quarterly_:[89] I have

only read a few pages. The skill and style make me think of Mivart. I

shall soon be viewed as the most despicable of men. This _Quarterly_

review tempts me to republish Ch. Wright, even if not read by anyone,

just to show that someone will say a word against Mivart, and that his

(i.e. Mivart's) remarks ought not to be swallowed without some

reflection.

I quite agree with what you say that Mivart fully intends to be

honourable; but he seems to me to have the mind of a most able lawyer

retained to plead against us, and especially against me. God knows

whether my strength and spirit will last out to write a chapter versus

Mivart and others; I do so hate controversy, and feel I should do it so

badly.

P.S.--I have now finished the review: there can be no doubt it is by

Mivart, and wonderfully clever.

* * * * *

_Holly House, Barking, E. July 16, 1871._

Dear Darwin,--I am very sorry you are so unwell, and that you allow

criticisms to worry you so. Remember the noble army of converts you have

made! and the host of the most talented men living who support you

wholly. What do you think of putting C. Wright's article as an appendix

to the new edition of the "Origin"? That would get it read, and obviate

my chief objection, that the people who read Mivart and the "Origin"

will very few of them buy a separate pamphlet to read. Pamphlets are

such nuisances. I don't think Mivart could have written the _Quarterly_

article, but I will look at it and shall, I think, be able to tell. Pray

keep your spirits up. I am so distracted by building troubles that I can

write nothing, and I shall not, till I get settled in my new house,

some time next spring, I hope.--With best wishes, believe me yours very

faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Haredene, Albury, Guildford. August 1, 1871._

My dear Wallace,--Your kind and sympathetic letter pleased me greatly

and did me good, but as you are so busy I did not answer it. I write now

because I have just received a very remarkable letter from Fritz Müller

(with butterflies' wings gummed on paper as illustrations) on mimicry,

etc. I think it is well worth your reading, but I will not send it,

unless I receive a 1/2d. card to this effect. He puts the difficulty of

first start in imitation excellently, and gives wonderful proof of

closeness of the imitation. He hints a curious addition to the theory in

relation to sexual selection, which you will think madly hypothetical:

it occurred to me in a very different class of cases, but I was afraid

to publish it. It would aid the theory of imitative protection, _when

the colours are bright_. He seems much pleased with your caterpillar

theory. I wish the letter could be published, but without coloured

illustrations [it] would, I fear, be unintelligible.

I have not yet made up my mind about Wright's review; I shall stop till

I hear from him. Your suggestion would make the "Origin," already too

large, still more bulky.

By the way, did Mr. Youmans, of the United States, apply to you to write

a popular sketch of Natural Selection? I told him you would do it

immeasurably better than anyone in the world. My head keeps very rocky

and wretched, but I am better,--Ever yours most truly,

C. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_Holly House, Barking, E. March 3, 1872._

Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your new edition of the "Origin," which I

have been too busy to acknowledge before. I think your answer to Mivart

on the initial stages of modification ample and complete, and the

comparison of whale and duck most beautiful. I always saw the fallacy of

these objections, of course. The eye and ear objection you have not so

satisfactorily answered, and to me the difficulty exists of how _three

times over_ an organ of sight was developed with the apparatus even

approximately identical. Why should not, in one case out of the three,

the heat rays or the chemical rays have been utilised for the same

purpose, in which case no translucent media would have been required,

and yet vision might have been just as perfect? The fact that the eyes

of insects and molluscs are transparent to us shows that the very same

limited portion of the rays of the spectrum is utilised for vision by

them as by us.

The chances seem to me immense against that having occurred through

"fortuitous variation," as Mivart puts it.

I see still further difficulties on this point but cannot go into them

now. Many thanks for your kind invitation. I will try and call some day,

but I am now very busy trying to make my house habitable by Lady Day,

when I _must_ be in it.--Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 27, 1872._

My dear Wallace,--I have just read with infinite satisfaction your

crushing article in _Nature_.[90] I have been the more glad to see it, as

I have not seen the book itself: I did not order it, as I felt sure

from Dr. B.'s former book that he could write nothing of value. But

assuredly I did not suppose that anyone would have written such a mass

of inaccuracies and rubbish. How rich is everything which he says and

quotes from Herbert Spencer!

By the way, I suppose that you read H. Spencer's answer to Martineau: it

struck me as quite wonderfully good, and I felt even more strongly

inclined than before to bow in reverence before him. Nothing has amused

me more in your review than Dr. B.'s extraordinary presumption in

deciding that such men as Lyell, Owen, H. Spencer, Mivart, Gaudry, etc.

etc., are all wrong. I daresay it would be very delightful to feel such

overwhelming confidence in oneself.

I have had a poor time of it of late, rarely having an hour of comfort,

except when asleep or immersed in work; and then when that is over I

feel dead with fatigue. I am now correcting my little book on

Expression; but it will not be published till November, when of course a

copy will be sent to you. I shall now try whether I can occupy myself

without writing anything more on so difficult a subject as Evolution.

I hope you are now comfortably settled in your new house, and have more

leisure than you have had for some time. I have looked out in the papers

for any notice about the curatorship of the new Museum, but have seen

nothing. If anything is decided in your favour, I _beg_ you to inform

me.--My dear Wallace, very truly yours,

C. DARWIN.

How grandly the public has taken up Hooker's case.

* * * * *

_Down. August 3, [1872]._

My dear Wallace,--I hate controversy, chiefly perhaps because I do it

badly; but as Dr. Bree accuses you of "blundering," I have thought

myself bound to send the enclosed letter[91] to _Nature_, that is, if

you in the least desire it. In this case please post it. If you do not

_at all_ wish it, I should rather prefer not sending it, and in this

case please tear it up. And I beg you to do the same, if you intend

answering Dr. Bree yourself, as you will do it incomparably better than

I should. Also please tear it up if you don't like the letter.--My dear

Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 4, 1872._

Dear Darwin,--I have sent your letter to _Nature_, as I think it will

settle that question far better than anything I can say. Many thanks for

it. I have not seen Dr. Bree's letter yet, as I get _Nature_ here very

irregularly, but as I was very careful to mention none but _real errors_

in Dr. Bree's book, I do not imagine there will be any necessity for my

taking any notice of it. It was really entertaining to have such a book

to review, the errors and misconceptions were so inexplicable and the

self-sufficiency of the man so amazing. Yet there is some excellent

writing in the book, and to a half-informed person it has all the

appearance of being a most valuable and authoritative work.

I am now reviewing a much more important book and one that, if I mistake

not, will really compel you sooner or later to modify some of your

views, though it will not at all affect the main doctrine of Natural

Selection as applied to the higher animals. I allude, of course, to

Bastian's "Beginnings of Life," which you have no doubt got. It is hard

reading, but intensely interesting. I am a thorough convert to his main

results, and it seems to me that nothing more important has appeared

since your "Origin." It is a pity he is so awfully voluminous and

discursive. When you have thoroughly digested it I shall be glad to know

what you are disposed to think. My first notice of it will I think

appear in _Nature_ next week, but I have been hurried for it, and it is

not so well written an article as I could wish.

I sincerely hope your health is improving.--Believe me yours very

faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.--I fear Lubbock's motion is being pushed off to the end of the

Session, and Hooker's case will not be fairly considered. I hope the

matter will _not_ be allowed to drop.--A.R.W.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. August 28, 1872._

My dear Wallace,--I have at last finished the gigantic job of reading

Dr. Bastian's book, and have been deeply interested in it. You wished to

hear my impression, but it is not worth sending.

He seems to me an extremely able man, as indeed I thought when I read

his first essay. His general argument in favour of archebiosis[92] is

wonderfully strong; though I cannot think much of some few of his

arguments. The result is that I am bewildered and astonished by his

statements, but am not convinced; though on the whole it seems to me

probable that archebiosis is true. I am not convinced partly I think

owing to the deductive cast of much of his reasoning; and I know not

why, but I never feel convinced by deduction, even in the case of H.

Spencer's writings. If Dr. B.'s book had been turned upside down, and he

had begun with the various cases of heterogenesis, and then gone on to

organic and afterwards to saline solutions, and had then given his

general arguments, I should have been, I believe, much more influenced.

I suspect, however, that my chief difficulty is the effect of old

convictions being stereotyped on my brain. I must have more evidence

that germs or the minutest fragments of the lowest forms are always

killed by 212° of Fahr. Perhaps the mere reiteration of the statements

given by Dr. B. by other men whose judgment I respect and who have

worked long on the lower organisms would suffice to convince me. Here is

a fine confession of intellectual weakness; but what an inexplicable

frame of mind is that of belief.

As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being spontaneously generated, my mind

can no more digest such statements, whether true or false, than my

stomach can digest a lump of lead.

Dr. B. is always comparing archebiosis as well as growth to

crystallisation; but on this view a Rotifer or Tardigrade is adapted to

its humble conditions of life by a happy accident; and this I cannot

believe. That observations of the above nature may easily be altogether

wrong is well shown by Dr. B. having declared to Huxley that he had

watched the entire development of a leaf of Sphagnum. He must have

worked with very impure materials in some cases, as plenty of organisms

appeared in a saline solution not containing an atom of nitrogen.

I wholly disagree with Dr. B. about many points in his latter chapters.

Thus the frequency of generalised forms in the older strata seems to me

clearly to indicate the common descent with divergence of more recent

forms.

Notwithstanding all his sneers, I do not strike my colours as yet about

pangenesis. I should like to live to see archebiosis proved true, for it

would be a discovery of transcendent importance; or if false I should

like to see it disproved, and the facts otherwise explained; but I shall

not live to see all this. If ever proved, Dr. B. will have taken a

prominent part in the work. How grand is the onward rush of science; it

is enough to console us for the many errors which we have committed and

for our efforts being overlaid and forgotten in the mass of new facts

and new views which are daily turning up.

This is all I have to say about Dr. B.'s book, and it certainly has not

been worth saying. Nevertheless, reward me whenever you can by giving me

any news about your appointment to the Bethnal Green Museum.--My dear

Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 31, 1872._

Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your long and interesting letter about

Bastian's book, though I almost regret that my asking you for your

opinion should have led you to give yourself so much trouble. I quite

understand your frame of mind, and think it quite a natural and proper

one. You had hard work to hammer your views into people's heads at

first, and if Bastian's theory is true he will have still harder work,

because the facts he appeals to are themselves so difficult to

establish. Are not you mistaken about the Sphagnum? As I remember it,

Huxley detected a fragment of Sphagnum leaf _in the same solution in

which a fungoid growth had been developed_. Bastian mistook the Sphagnum

also for a vegetable growth, and on account of this ignorance of the

character of Sphagnum, and its presence in the solution, Huxley rejected

somewhat contemptuously (and I think very illogically) all Bastian's

observations. Again, as to the saline solution without nitrogen, would

not the air supply what was required?

I quite agree that the book would have gained force by rearrangement in

the way you suggest, but perhaps he thought it necessary to begin with a

general argument in order to induce people to examine his new collection

of facts, I am impressed _most_ by the agreement of so many observers,

some of whom struggle to explain away their own facts. What a

wonderfully ingenious and suggestive paper that is by Galton on "Blood

Relationship." It helps to render intelligible many of the

eccentricities of heredity, atavism, etc.

Sir Charles Lyell was good enough to write to Lord Ripon and Mr. Cole[93]

about me and the Bethnal Green Museum, and the answer he got was that at

present no appointment of a director is contemplated. I suppose they see

no way of making it a Natural History Museum, and it will have to be

kept going by Loan Collections of miscellaneous works of art, in which

case, of course, the South Kensington people will manage it. It is a

considerable disappointment to me, as I had almost calculated on getting

something there.

With best wishes for your good health and happiness, believe me, dear

Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.--I have just been reading Howorth's paper in the _Journal of the

Anthropological Institute_. How perverse it is. He throughout confounds

"fertility" with "increase of population," which seems to me to be the

main cause of his errors. His elaborate accumulation of facts in other

papers in _Nature_, on "Subsidence and Elevation of Land," I believe to

be equally full of error, and utterly untrustworthy as a whole.--A.R.W.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. September 2, 1872._

My dear Wallace,--I write a line to say that I understood--but I may of

course have been mistaken--from Huxley that Bastian distinctly stated

that he had watched the development of the scale of Sphagnum: I was

astonished, as I knew the appearance of Sphagnum under a high power, and

asked a second time; but I repeat that I may have been mistaken. Busk

told me that Sharpey had noticed the appearance of numerous Infusoria in

one of the solutions not containing any nitrogen; and I do not suppose

that any physiologist would admit the possibility of Infusoria absorbing

nitrogen gas. Possibly I ought not to have mentioned statements made in

private conversation, so please do not repeat them.

I quite agree about the extreme importance of such men as Cohn

[illegible] and Carter having observed apparent cases of heterogenesis.

At present I should prefer any mad hypothesis, such as that every

disintegrated molecule of the lowest forms can reproduce the

parent-form, and that the molecules are universally distributed, and

that they do not lose their vital power until heated to such a

temperature that they decompose like dead organic particles.

I am extremely grieved to hear about the Museum: it is a great

misfortune.--Yours most sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

I have taken up old botanical work and have given up all theories.

I quite agree about Howorth's paper: he wrote to me and I told him that

we differed so widely it was of no use our discussing any point.

As for Galton's paper, I have never yet been able to fully digest it: as

far as I have, it has not cleared my ideas, and has only aided in

bringing more prominently forward the large proportion of the latent

characters.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. October 20, 1872._

My dear Wallace,--I have thought that you would perhaps like to see

enclosed specimen and extract from letter (translated from the German by

my son) from Dr. W. Marshall, Zoological Assistant to Schlegel at

Leyden. Neither the specimen nor extract need be returned; and you need

not acknowledge the receipt. The resemblance is not so close, now that

the fragments are gummed on card, as I at first thought. Your review of

Houzeau was very good: I skimmed through the whole gigantic book, but

you managed to pick out the plums much better than I did for myself. You

are a born critic. What an _admirable_ number that was of _Nature_.

I am writing this at Sevenoaks, where we have taken a house for three

weeks and have one more week to stay. We came here that I may get a

little rest, of which I stood in much need.--Ever yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

With respect to what you say about certain instincts of ants having been

acquired by experience or sense, have you kept in mind that the neuters

have no progeny? I wish I knew whether the fertile females, or queens,

do the same work (viz. placing the eggs in warm places, etc.) as the

neuters do afterwards; if so the case would be comparatively simple; but

I believe this is not the case, and I am driven to selection of varying

pre-existing instincts.

* * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 15, 1872._

Dear Darwin,--I should have written earlier to thank you for your

book,[94] but was hoping to be able to read more of it before doing so.

I have not, however, found time to get beyond the first three chapters,

but that is quite sufficient to show me how exceedingly interesting you

have made the subject, and how completely and admirably you have worked

it out. I expect it will be one of the most popular of your works. I

have just been asked to write a review of it for the _Quarterly Journal

of Science_, for which purpose I shall be in duty bound to seek out some

deficiencies, however minute, so as to give my notice some flavour of

criticism.

The cuts and photos are admirable, and my little boy and girl seized it

at once to look at the naughty babies.

With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.--I will take this opportunity of asking you if you know of any book

that will give me a complete catalogue of vertebrate fossils with some

indication of their affinities.--A.R.W.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 13, 1873._

My dear Wallace,--I have read your review with much interest, and I

thank you sincerely for the very kind spirit in which it is written. I

cannot say that I am convinced by your criticisms.[95] If you have ever

actually observed a kitten sucking and pounding with extended toes its

mother, and then seen the same kitten when a _little older_ doing the

same thing on a soft shawl, and ultimately an old cat (as I have seen),

and do not admit that it is identically the same action, I am

astonished.

With respect to the decapitated frog,[96] I have always heard of Pflüger

as a most trustworthy observer. If, indeed, anyone knows a frog's habits

so well as to say that it never rubs off a bit of leaf or other object,

which may stick to its thigh, in the same manner as it did the acid,

your objection would be valid. Some of Flourens' experiments, in which

he removed the cerebral hemisphere from a pigeon, indicate that acts

_apparently_ performed consciously can be done without consciousness--I

presume through the force of habit; in which case it would appear that

intellectual power is not brought into play. Several persons have made

such suggestions and objections as yours about the hands being held up

in astonishment:[97] if there was any straining of the muscles, as with

protruded arms under fright, I would agree: as it is I must keep to my

old opinion, and I daresay you will say that I am an obstinate old

blockhead.--My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

The book has sold wonderfully; 9,000 copies have now been printed.

* * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. Wednesday morning, [November, 1873]._

Dear Darwin,--Yours just received. Pray act exactly as if nothing had

been said to me on the subject. I do not particularly _wish_ for the

work,[98] as, besides being as you say, tedious work, it involves a

considerable amount of responsibility. Still, I am prepared to do any

literary work of the kind, as I told Bates some time ago, and that is

the reason he wrote to me about it. I certainly think, however, that it

would be in many ways more satisfactory to you if your son did it, and I

therefore hope he may undertake it.

Should he, however, for any reasons, be unable, I am at your service as

a _dernier ressort_.

In case my meaning is not quite clear, I will _not do it_ unless your

son has the offer and declines it.--Believe me, dear Darwin, yours very

faithfully,

ALFRED B. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 18, 1873._

Dear Darwin,--I quite understand what you require, and would undertake

to do it to the best of my ability. Of course in such work I should not

think of offering criticisms of matter.

I do not think I could form any idea of how long it would take by seeing

the MSS., as it would all depend upon the amount of revision and

working-in required. I have helped Sir C. Lyell with his last three or

four editions in a somewhat similar though different way, and for him I

have kept an account simply of the hours I was employed in any way for

him, and he paid me 5/- an hour; but (of course this is confidential) I

do not think this quite enough for the class of work. I should propose

for your work 7/- an hour as a fair remuneration, and I would put down

each day the hours I worked at it.

No doubt you will get it done for very much less by any literary man

accustomed to regular literary work and nothing else, and perhaps better

done, so do not in the least scruple in saying you decide on employing

the gentleman you had in view if you prefer it.

If you send it to me could you let me have _all_ your MSS. copied out,

as it adds considerably to the time required if there is any difficulty

in deciphering the writing, which in yours (as you are no doubt aware)

there often is.

My hasty note to Bates was not intended to be shown you or anyone. I

thought he had heard of it from Murray, and that the arrangement was to

be made by Murray.--Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.--I have been delighted with H. Spencer's "Study of Sociology." Some

of the passages in the latter part are _grand_. You have perhaps seen

that I am dipping into politics myself occasionally.--A.R.W.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenkam, Kent. November 19, 1873._

Dear Wallace,--I thank you for your extremely kind letter, and I am

sorry that I troubled you with that of yesterday. My wife thinks that my

son George would be so much pleased at undertaking the work for me, that

I will write to him, and so probably shall have no occasion to trouble

you. If on still further reflection, and after looking over my notes, I

think that my son could not do the work, I will write again and

_gratefully_ accept your proposal. But if you do not hear, you will

understand that I can manage the affair myself. I never in my lifetime

regretted an interruption so much as this new edition of the "Descent."

I am deeply immersed in some work on physiological points with plants.

I fully agree with what you say about H. Spencer's "Sociology"; I do not

believe there is a man in Europe at all his equal in talents. I did not

know that you had been writing on politics, except so far as your letter

on the coal question, which interested me much and struck me as a

capital letter.

I must again thank you for your letter, and remain, dear Wallace, yours

very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

I hope to Heaven that politics will not replace natural science.

I know too well how atrociously bad my handwriting is.

* * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. December 6, 1874._

Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your kindness in sending me a copy of your

new edition of the "Descent." I see you have made a whole host of

additions and corrections which I shall have great pleasure in reading

over as soon as I have got rid of my horrid book on Geographical

Distribution, which is almost driving me mad with the amount of drudgery

required and the often unsatisfactory nature of the result. However, I

must finish with it soon, or all the part first done will have to be

done over again, every new book, either as a monograph, or a

classification, putting everything wrong (for me).

Hoping you are in good health and able to go on with your favourite

work, I remain yours very sincerely,

ALFRED B. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. July 21, 1875._

Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your kindness in sending me a copy of your

new book.[99] Being very busy I have only had time to dip into it yet.

The account of Utricularia is most marvellous, and quite new to me. I'm

rather surprised that you do not make any remarks on the origin of these

extraordinary contrivances for capturing insects. Did you think they

were too obvious? I daresay there is no difficulty, but I feel sure they

will be seized on as inexplicable by Natural Selection, and your silence

on the point will be held to show that you consider them so! The

contrivance in Utricularia and Dionæa, and in fact in Drosera too, seems

fully as great and complex as in Orchids, but there is not the same

motive force. Fertilisation and cross-fertilisation are important ends

enough to lead to _any_ modification, but can we suppose mere

nourishment to be so important, seeing that it is so easily and almost

universally obtained by extrusion of roots and leaves? Here are plants

which lose their roots and leaves to acquire the same results by

infinitely complex modes! What a wonderful and long-continued series of

variations must have led up to the perfect "trap" in Utricularia, while

at any stage of the process the same end might have been gained by a

little more development of roots and leaves, as in 9,999 plants out of

10,000!

Is this an imaginary difficulty, or do you mean to deal with it in

future editions of the "Origin"?--Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 7, 1875._

Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your beautiful little volume on "Climbing

Plants," which forms a most interesting companion to your "Orchids" and

"Insectivorous Plants." I am sorry to see that you have not this time

given us the luxury of cut edges.

I am in the midst of printing and proof-sheets, which are wearisome in

the extreme from the mass of names and statistics I have been obliged to

introduce, and which will, I fear, make my book insufferably dull to all

but zoological specialists.

My trust is in my pictures and maps to catch the public.

Hoping yourself and all your family are quite well, believe me yours

very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. June 5, 1876._

My dear Wallace,--I must have the pleasure of expressing to you my

unbounded admiration of your book,[100] though I have read only to page

184--my object having been to do as little as possible while resting. I

feel sure that you have laid a broad and safe foundation for all future

work on Distribution. How interesting it will be to see hereafter plants

treated in strict relation to your views; and then all insects,

pulmonate molluscs, and fresh-water fishes, in greater detail than I

suppose you have given to these lower animals. The point which has

interested me most, but I do not say the most valuable point, is your

protest against sinking imaginary continents in a quite reckless manner,

as was started by Forbes, followed, alas, by Hooker, and caricatured by

Wollaston and Murray. By the way, the main impression which the latter

author has left on my mind is his utter want of all scientific judgment.

I have lifted up my voice against the above view with no avail, but I

have no doubt that you will succeed, owing to your new arguments and the

coloured chart. Of a special value, as it seems to me, is the conclusion

that we must determine the areas chiefly by the nature of the mammals.

When I worked many years ago on this subject, I doubted much whether the

now-called Palearctic and Nearctic regions ought to be separated; and I

determined if I made another region that it should be Madagascar. I have

therefore been able to appreciate the value of your evidence on these

points. What progress Palæontology has made during the last 20 years!

But if it advances at the same rate in the future, our views on the

migration and birthplace of the various groups will, I fear, be greatly

altered. I cannot feel quite easy about the Glacial period and the

extinction of large mammals, but I much hope that you are right. I think

you will have to modify your belief about the difficulty of dispersal of

land molluscs; I was interrupted when beginning to experimentise on the

just-hatched young adhering to the feet of ground-roosting birds. I

differ on one other point, viz. in the belief that there must have

existed a Tertiary Antarctic continent, from which various forms

radiated to the southern extremities of our present continents. But I

could go on scribbling for ever. You have written, as I believe, a grand

and memorable work, which will last for years as the foundation for all

future treatises on Geographical Distribution,--My dear Wallace, yours

very sincerely,

CHARLES DARWIN.

P.S.--You have paid me the highest conceivable compliment by what you

say of your work in relation to my chapters on Distribution in the

"Origin," and I heartily thank you for it.

* * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. June 7, 1876._

Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your very kind letter. So few people will

read my book at all regularly, that a criticism from one who does so

will be very welcome.

If, as I suppose, it is only to p. 184 of Vol. I. that you have read,

you cannot yet quite see my conclusions on the points you refer to (land

molluscs and Antarctic continent). My own conclusions fluctuated during

the progress of the book, and I have, I know, occasionally used

expressions (the relics of earlier ideas) which are not quite consistent

with what I say further on. I am positively against any Southern

continent as _uniting_ South America with Australia or New Zealand, as

you will see at Vol. I., pp. 398-403 and 459-466. My general conclusions

as to Distribution of Land Mollusca[101] are at Vol. II., pp. 522-529.

When you have read these passages and looked at the general facts which

lead to them, I shall be glad to hear if you still differ from me.

Though, of course, _present results_ as to origin and migrations of

genera of mammals will have to be modified owing to new discoveries, I

cannot help thinking that much will remain unaffected, because in all

geographical and geological discoveries the great outlines are soon

reached; the details alone remain to be modified. I also think much of

the geological evidence is now so accordant with, and explanatory of,

geographical distribution that it is prima facie correct in outline.

Nevertheless, such vast masses of new facts will come out in the next

few years that I quite dread the labour of incorporating them in a new

edition.

Now for a little personal matter. For two years I have made up my mind

to leave this place--mainly for two reasons: drought and wind prevent

the satisfactory growth of all delicate plants; and I cannot stand being

unable to attend evening meetings and being obliged to refuse every

invitation in London. But I was obliged to stay till I had got it into

decent order to attract a customer. At last it is so, and I am offering

it for sale, and as soon as it is disposed of I intend to try the

neighbourhood of Dorking, whence there are late trains from Cannon

Street and Charing Cross.

I see your post-mark was Dorking, so I suppose you have been staying

there. Is it not a lovely country? I hope your health is improved, and

when, quite at your leisure, you have waded through my book, I trust

you will again let me have a few lines of friendly criticism and

advice.--Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham. June 17, 1876._

My dear Wallace,--I have now finished the whole of Vol. I., with the

same interest and admiration as before; and I am convinced that my

judgment was right and that it is a memorable book, the basis of all

future work on the subject. I have nothing particular to say, but

perhaps you would like to hear my impressions on two or three points.

Nothing has struck me more than the admirable and convincing manner in

which you treat Java. To allude to a very trifling point, it is capital

about the unadorned head of the Argus pheasant.[102] How plain a thing is,

when it is once pointed out! What a wonderful case is that of Celebes! I

am glad that you have slightly modified your views with respect to

Africa,[103] and this leads me to say that I cannot swallow the so-called

continent of Lemuria, i.e. the direct connection of Africa and

Ceylon![104] The facts do not seem to me many and strong enough to justify

so immense a change of level. Moreover, Mauritius and the other islands

appear to me oceanic in character. But do not suppose that I place my

judgment on this subject on a level with yours. A wonderfully good paper

was published about a year ago on India in the _Geological Journal_--I

_think_ by Blandford.[105] Ramsay agreed with me that it was one of the

best published for a long time. The author shows that India has been a

continent with enormous fresh-water lakes from the Permian period to the

present day. If I remember right he believes in a former connection with

South Africa.

I am sure that I read, some 20 to 30 years ago, in a French journal, an

account of teeth of mastodon found in Timor; but the statement may have

been an error.

With respect to what you say about the colonising of New Zealand, I

somewhere have an account of a frog frozen in the ice of a Swiss

glacier, and which revived when thawed. I may add that there is an

Indian toad which can resist salt water and haunts the seaside. Nothing

ever astonished me more than the case of the Galaxias; but it does not

seem known whether it may not be a migratory fish like the salmon. It

seems to me that you complicate rather too much the successive

colonisations with New Zealand. I should prefer believing that the

Galaxias was a species, like the Emys of the Sewalik Hills, which has

long retained the same form. Your remarks on the insects and flowers of

New Zealand have greatly interested me; but aromatic leaves I have

always looked at as a protection against their being eaten by insects or

other animals; and as insects are there rare, such protection would not

be much needed. I have written more than I intended, and I must again

say how profoundly your book has interested me.

Now let me turn to a very different subject. I have only just heard of

and procured your two articles in the _Academy_. I thank you most

cordially for your generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the

"Origin" I did not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that I

might not be accused of concealing my opinion I went out of my way and

inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and still so seems) to declare

plainly my belief. This was quoted in my "Descent of Man." Therefore it

is very unjust, not to say dishonest, of Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base

fraudulent concealment; I care little about myself; but Mr. Mivart, in

an article in the _Quarterly Review_ (which I _know_ was written by

him), accused my son George of encouraging profligacy, and this without

the least foundation.[106] I can assert this positively, as I laid

George's article and the _Quarterly Review_ before Hooker, Huxley and

others, and all agreed that the accusation was a deliberate

falsification. Huxley wrote to him on the subject and has almost or

quite cut him in consequence; and so would Hooker, but he was advised

not to do so as President of the Royal Society. Well, he has gained his

object in giving me pain, and, good God, to think of the flattering,

almost fawning speeches which he has made to me! I wrote, of course, to

him to say that I would never speak to him again. I ought, however, to

be contented, as he is the one man who has ever, as far as I know,

treated me basely.

Forgive me for writing at such length, and believe me yours very

sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

P.S.--I am very sorry that you have given up sexual selection. I am not

at all shaken, and stick to my colours like a true Briton. When I think

about the unadorned head of the Argus pheasant, I might exclaim, _Et tu,

Brute!_

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham. June 25, 1876._

My dear Wallace,--I have been able to read rather more quickly of late

and have finished your book. I have not much to say. Your careful

account of the temperate parts of South America interested me much, and

all the more from knowing something of the country. I like also much the

general remarks towards the end of the volume on the land molluscs. Now

for a few criticisms.

P. 122:[107] I am surprised at your saying that "during the whole Tertiary

period North America was zoologically far more strongly contrasted with

South America than it is now." But we know hardly anything of the latter

except during the Pliocene period, and then the mastodon, horse, several

great Dentata, etc. etc., were common to the North and South. If you are

right I erred greatly in my Journal, where I insisted on the former

close connection between the two.

P. 252, and elsewhere: I agree thoroughly with the general principle

that a great area with many competing forms is necessary for much and

high development; but do you not extend this principle too far--I should

say much too far, considering how often several species of the same

genus have been developed on very small islands?

P. 265: You say that the Sittidæ extend to Madagascar, but there is no

number in the tabular heading.[108]

P. 359: Rhinochetus is entered in the tabular heading under No. 3 of the

_Neotropical_ sub-regions.[109]

Reviewers think it necessary to find some fault, and if I were to review

you, the sole point which I should blame is your not giving very

numerous references. These would save whoever follows you great labour.

Occasionally I wished myself to know the authority for certain

statements, and whether you or somebody else had originated certain

subordinate views. Take the case of a man who had collected largely on

some island, for instance St. Helena, and who wished to work out the

geographical relations of his collection; he would, I think, feel very

blank at not finding in your work precise references to all that had

been written on St. Helena. I hope you will not think me a confoundedly

disagreeable fellow.

I may mention a capital essay which I received a few mouths ago from

Axel Blytt[110] on the distribution of the plants of Scandinavia; showing

the high probability of there having been secular periods alternately

wet and dry; and of the important part which they have played in

distribution.

I wrote to Forel, who is always at work on ants, and told him of your

views about the dispersal of the blind Coleoptera, and asked him to

observe.

I spoke to Hooker about your book, and feel sure that he would like

nothing better than to consider the distribution of plants in relation

to your views; but he seemed to doubt whether he should ever have time.

And now I have done my jottings, and once again congratulate you on

having brought out so grand a work. I have been a little disappointed at

the review in _Nature_[111]--My dear Wallace, yours sincerely,

CHARLES DARWIN.

* * * * *

_Rose Hill, Dorking. July 23, 1876._

My dear Darwin,--I should have replied sooner to your last kind and

interesting letters, but they reached me in the midst of my packing

previous to removal here, and I have only just now got my books and

papers in a get-at-able state.

And first, many thanks for your close observation in detecting the two

absurd mistakes in the tabular headings.

As to the former greater distinction of the North and South American

faunas, I think I am right. The Edentata, being proved (as I hold) to

have been mere temporary migrants into North America in the

post-Pliocene epoch, form no part of its Tertiary fauna. Yet in South

America they were so enormously developed in the Pliocene epoch that we

know, if there is any such thing as Evolution, etc., that strange

ancestral forms must have preceded them in Miocene times.

Mastodon, on the other hand, represented by one or two species only,

appears to have been a late immigrant into South America from the North.

The immense development of Ungulates (in varied families, genera, and

species) in North America during the whole Tertiary epoch is, however,

the great feature, which assimilates it to Europe and contrasts it with

South America. True camels, hosts of hog-like animals, true

rhinoceroses, and hosts of ancestral horses, all bring North America

much nearer to the Old World than it is now. Even the horse, represented

in all South America by Equus only, was probably a temporary immigrant

from the North.

As to extending too far the principle (yours) of the necessity of

comparatively large areas for the development of varied faunas, I may

have done so, but I think not. There is, I think, every probability that

most islands, etc., where a varied fauna now exists have been once more

extensive, e.g. New Zealand, Madagascar. Where there is no such evidence

(e.g. Galapagos), the fauna is _very restricted_.

Lastly as to want of references; I confess the justice of your

criticism. But I am dreadfully unsystematic. It is my first large work

involving much of the labour of others. I began with the intention of

writing a comparatively short sketch, enlarged it, and added to it, bit

by bit; remodelled the tables, the headings, and almost everything else,

more than once, and got my materials into such confusion that it is a

wonder it has not turned out far more crooked and confused than it is.

I, no doubt, ought to have given references; but in many cases I found

the information so small and scattered, and so much had to be combined

and condensed from conflicting authorities, that I hardly knew how to

refer to them or where to leave off. Had I referred to all authors

consulted for every fact, I should have greatly increased the bulk of

the book, while a large portion of the references would be valueless in

a few years owing to later and better authorities. My experience of

referring to references has generally been most unsatisfactory. One

finds, nine times out of ten, the fact is stated, and nothing more; or

a reference to some third work not at hand!

I wish I could get into the habit of giving chapter and verse for every

fact and extract, but I am too lazy and generally in a hurry, having to

consult books against time when in London for a day.

However, I will try and do something to mend this matter should I have

to prepare another edition.

I return you Forel's letter. It does not advance the question much,

neither do I think it likely that even the complete observation he

thinks necessary would be of much use; because it may well be that the

ova or larvæ or imagos of the beetles are not carried systematically by

the ants, but only occasionally owing to some exceptional circumstances.

This might produce a great effect in distribution, yet be so rare as

never to come under observation.

Several of your remarks in previous letters I shall carefully consider.

I know that, compared with the extent of the subject, my book is in many

parts crude and ill-considered; but I thought, and still think, it

better to make _some generalisations_ wherever possible, as I am not at

all afraid of having to alter my views in many points of detail. I was

so overwhelmed with zoological details that I never went through the

Geological Society's _Journal_ as I ought to have done, and as I mean to

do before writing more on the subject.

With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Rose Hill, Dorking. December 13, 1876._

My dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your new book on "Crossing Plants,"

which I have read with much interest. I hardly expected, however, that

there would have been so many doubtful and exceptional cases. I fancy

that the results would have come out better had you always taken

weights instead of heights; and that would have obviated the objection

that will, I daresay, be made, that _height_ proves nothing, because a

tall plant may be weaker, less bulky and less vigorous than a shorter

one. Of course no one who knows you or who takes a _general_ view of

your results will say this, but I daresay it will be said. I am afraid

this book will not do much or anything to get rid of the one great

objection, that the physiological characteristic of species, the

infertility of hybrids, has not yet been produced. Have you ever tried

experiments with plants (if any can be found) which for several

centuries have been grown under very different conditions, as for

instance potatoes on the high Andes and in Ireland? If any approach to

sterility occurred in mongrels between these it would be a grand step.

The most curious point you have brought out seems to me the slight

superiority of self-fertilisation over fertilisation with another flower

of the same plant, and the most important result, that difference of

constitution is the essence of the benefit of cross-fertilisation. All

you now want is to find the neutral point where the benefit is at its

maximum, any greater difference being prejudicial.

Hoping you may yet demonstrate this, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Rose Hill, Dorking. January 17, 1877._

My dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your valuable new edition of the

"Orchids," which I see contains a great deal of new matter of the

greatest interest. I am amazed at your continuous work, but I suppose,

after all these years of it, it is impossible for you to remain idle. I,

on the contrary, am very idle, and feel inclined to do nothing but

stroll about this beautiful country, and read all kinds of miscellaneous

literature.

I have asked my friend Mr. Mott to send you the last of his remarkable

papers--on Haeckel. But the part I hope you will read with as much

interest as I have done is that on the deposits of Carbon, and the part

it has played and must be playing in geological changes. He seems to

have got the idea from some German book, but it seems to me very

important, and I wonder it never occurred to Sir Charges Lyell. If the

calculations as to the quantity of undecomposed carbon deposited are

anything approaching to correctness, the results must be important.

Hoping you are in pretty good health, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Rose Hill, Dorking. July 23, 1877._

My dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your admirable volume on "The Forms of

Flowers." It would be impertinence of me to say anything in praise of

it, except that I have read the chapters on "Illegitimate Offspring of

Heterostyled Plants" and on "Cleistogamic Flowers" with great interest.

I am almost afraid to tell you that in going over the subject of the

Colours of Animals, etc., for a small volume of essays, etc., I am

preparing, I have come to conclusions directly opposed to _voluntary

sexual selection_, and believe that I can explain (in a general way)

_all_ the phenomena of sexual ornaments and colours by laws of

development aided by simple Natural Selection.

I hope you admire as I do Mr. Belt's remarkable series of papers in

support of his terrific "oceanic glacier river-damming" hypothesis. In

awful grandeur it beats everything "glacial" yet out, and it certainly

explains a wonderful lot of hard facts. The last one, on the "Glacial

Period in the Southern Hemisphere," in the _Quarterly Journal of

Science_, is particularly fine, and I see he has just read a paper at

the Geological Society. It seems to me supported by quite as much

evidence as Ramsay's "Lakes"; but Ramsay, I understand, will have none

of it--as yet.--Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. August 31, 1877._

My dear Wallace,--I am very much obliged to you for sending your

article, which is very interesting and appears to me as clearly written

as it can be. You will not be surprised that I differ altogether from

you about sexual colours. That the tail of the peacock and his elaborate

display of it should be due merely to the vigour, activity, and vitality

of the male is to me as utterly incredible as my views are to you.

Mantegazza published a few years ago in Italy a somewhat similar view. I

cannot help doubting about recognition through colour; our horses, dogs,

fowls, and pigeons seem to know their own species, however differently

the individuals may be coloured. I wonder whether you attribute the

odoriferous and sound-producing organs, when confined to the males, to

their greater vigour, etc.? I could say a good deal in opposition to

you, but my arguments would have no weight in your eyes, and I do not

intend to write for the public anything on this or any other difficult

subject. By the way, I doubt whether the term voluntary in relation to

sexual selection ought to be employed: when a man is fascinated by a

pretty girl it can hardly be called voluntary, and I suppose that female

animals are charmed or excited in nearly the same manner by the gaudy

males.

Three essays have been published lately in Germany which would interest

you: one by Weismann, who shows that the coloured stripes on the

caterpillars of Sphinx are beautifully protective: and birds were

frightened away from their feeding-place by a caterpillar with large

eye-like spots on the broad anterior segments of the body. Fritz Müller

has well discussed the first steps of mimicry with butterflies, and

comes to nearly or quite the same conclusion as you, but supports it by

additional arguments.

Fritz Müller also has lately shown that the males alone of certain

butterflies have odoriferous glands on their wings (distinct from those

which secrete matter disgusting to birds), and where these glands are

placed the scales assume a different shape, making little tufts.

Farewell: I hope that you find Dorking a pleasant place? I was staying

lately at Abinger Hall, and wished to come over to see you, but driving

tires me so much that my courage failed.--Yours very sincerely,

CHAS. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_Madeira Villa, Madeira Road, Ventnor, Isle of Wight. September 3,

1877._

My dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your letter. Of course I did not expect

my paper to have any effect on your opinions. You have looked at all the

facts so long from your special point of view that it would require

conclusive arguments to influence you, and these, from the complex

nature of the question, are probably not to be had. We must, I think,

leave the case in the hands of others, and I am in hopes that my paper

may call sufficient attention to the subject to induce some of the great

school of Darwinians to take the question up and work it out thoroughly.

You have brought such a mass of facts to support your view, and have

argued it so fully, that I hardly think it necessary for you to do more.

Truth will prevail, as you as well as I wish it to do. I will only make

one or two remarks. The word "voluntary" was inserted in _my proofs

only_, in order to distinguish clearly between the two radically

distinct kinds of "sexual selection." Perhaps "conscious" would be a

better word, to which I think you will not object, and I will alter it

when I republish. I lay no stress on the word "voluntary."

Sound- and scent-producing organs in males are surely due to "natural"

or "automatic" as opposed to "conscious" selection. If there were

gradations in the sounds produced, from mere noises, up to elaborate

music--the case would be analogous to that of "colours" and "ornament."

Being, however, comparatively simple, Natural Selection, owing to their

use as a guide, seems sufficient. The louder sound, heard at a greater

distance, would attract or be heard by more females, or it may attract

other males and lead to combats _for_ the females, but this would not

imply _choice_ in the sense of rejecting a male whose stridulation was a

trifle less loud than another's, which is the essence of the theory as

applied by you to colour and ornament. But greater general vigour would

almost certainly lead to greater volume or persistence of sound, and so

the same view will apply to both cases on my theory.

Thanks for the references you give me. My ignorance of German prevents

me supporting my views by the mass of observations continually being

made abroad, so I can only advance my own ideas for what they are worth.

I like Dorking much, but can find no house to suit me, so fear I shall

have to move again.

With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. September 5, [1877]._

My dear Wallace,--"Conscious" seems to me much better than "voluntary."

Conscious action, I presume, comes into play when two males fight for a

female; but I do not know whether you admit that, for instance, the

spur of the cock is due to sexual selection.

I am quite willing to admit that the sounds and vocal organs of some

males are used only for challenging, but I doubt whether this applies to

the musical notes of Hylobates or to the howling (I judge chiefly from

Rengger) of the American monkeys. No account that I have seen of the

stridulation of male insects shows that it is a challenge. All those who

have attended to birds consider their song as a charm to the females and

not as a challenge. As the males in most cases search for the females I

do not see how their odoriferous organs will aid them in finding the

females. But it is foolish in me to go on writing, for I believe I have

said most of this in my book: anyhow, I well remember thinking over it.

The "belling" of male stags, if I remember rightly, is a challenge, and

so I daresay is the roaring of the lion during the breeding season.

I will just add in reference to your former letter that I fully admit

that with birds the fighting of the males co-operates with their charms;

and I remember quoting Bartlett that gaudy colouring in the males is

almost invariably concomitant with pugnacity. But, thank Heaven, what

little more I can do in science will be confined to observation on

simple points. However much I may have blundered, I have done my best,

and that is my constant comfort.--Most truly yours,

C. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_Waldron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. September 14, 1878._

Dear Darwin,--An appointment is soon to be made of someone to have the

superintendence of Epping Forest under the new Act, and as it is a post

which of all others I should like I am trying very hard to get up

interest enough to secure it.

One of the means is the enclosed memorial, which has been already signed

by Sir J. Hooker and Sir J. Lubbock, and to which I feel sure you will

add your name, which I expect has weight "even in the City."

In want of anything better to do I have been grinding away at a book on

the Geography of Australia for Stanford for the last six months.

Hoping you are in good health, and with my best compliments to Mrs.

Darwin and the rest of your family, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. September 16, 1878._

My dear Wallace,--I return the paper signed, and most heartily wish that

you may be successful, not only for your own sake, but for that of

Natural Science, as you would then have more time for new researches.

I keep moderately well, but always feel half-dead, yet manage to work

away on vegetable physiology, as I think that I should die outright if I

had nothing to do.--Believe me yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN

* * * * *

_Walron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. September 23, 1878._

Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your signature and good wishes. I have

some hopes of success, but am rather doubtful of the Committee of the

Corporation who will have the management, for they have just decided

after a great struggle in the Court of Common Council that it is to be a

rotatory Committee, every member of the Council (of whom there are 200)

coming on it in succession if they please. They evidently look upon it

as a Committee which will have great opportunities of excursions,

picnics, and dinners, at the expense of the Corporation, while the

improvement of the Forest will be quite a secondary matter.

I am very glad to hear you are tolerably well. It is all I can say of

myself.--Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 5, 1880._

My dear Wallace,--As this note requires no sort of answer, you must

allow me to express my lively admiration of your paper in the

_Nineteenth Century_.[112] You certainly are a master in the difficult art

of clear exposition. It is impossible to urge too often that the

selection from a single varying individual or of a single varying organ

will not suffice. You have worked in capitally Allen's admirable

researches. As usual, you delight to honour me more than I deserve. When

I have written about the extreme slowness of Natural Selection (in which

I hope I may be wrong), I have chiefly had in my mind the effects of

intercrossing. I subscribe to almost everything you say excepting the

last short sentence.

And now let me add how grieved I was to hear that the City of London did

not elect you for the Epping office, but I suppose it was too much to

hope that such a body of men should make a good selection. I wish you

could obtain some quiet post and thus have leisure for moderate

scientific work. I have nothing to tell you about myself; I see few

persons, for conversation fatigues me much; but I daily do some work in

experiments on plants, and hope thus to continue to the end of my days.

With all good wishes, believe me yours very sincerely,

CHARLES DARWIN.

P.S.--Have you seen Mr. Farrer's article in the last _Fortnightly_? It

reminded me of an article on bequests by you some years ago which

interested and almost converted me.

* * * * *

_Waldron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. January 9, 1880._

My dear Darwin,--It is a great pleasure to receive a letter from you

sometimes--especially when we do not differ very much. I am, of course,

much pleased and gratified that you like my article. I wrote it chiefly

because I thought there was something a little fresh still to say on the

subject, and also because I wished to define precisely my present

position, which people continually misunderstand. The main part of the

article forms part of a chapter of a book I have now almost finished on

my favourite subject of "Geographical Distribution." It will form a sort

of supplement to my former work, and will, I trust, be more readable and

popular. I go pretty fully into the laws of variation and dispersal; the

exact character of specific and generic areas, and their causes; the

growth, dispersal and extinction of species and groups, illustrated by

maps, etc.; changes of geography and of climate as affecting dispersal,

with a full discussion of the Glacial theory, adopting Croll's views

(part of this has been published as a separate article in the _Quarterly

Review_ of last July, and has been highly approved by Croll and Geikie);

a discussion of the theory of permanent continents and oceans, which I

see you were the first to adopt, but which geologists, I am sorry to

say, quite ignore. All this is preliminary. Then follows a series of

chapters on the different kinds of islands, continental and oceanic,

with a pretty full discussion of the characters, affinities, and origin

of their fauna and flora in typical cases. Among these I am myself quite

pleased with my chapters on New Zealand, as I believe I have fully

explained and accounted for _all_ the main peculiarities of the New

Zealand and Australian floras. I call the book "Island Life," etc. etc.,

and I think it will be interesting.

Thanks for your regrets and kind wishes anent Epping. It was a

disappointment, as I had good friends on the Committee and therefore had

too much hope. I may just mention that I am thinking of making some

application through friends for some post in the new Josiah Mason

College of Science at Birmingham, as Registrar or Curator and Librarian,

etc. The Trustees have advertised for Professors to begin next October.

Should you happen to know any of the Trustees, or have any influential

friends in Birmingham, perhaps you could help me.

I think this book will be my last, as I have pretty well said all I have

to say in it, and I have never taken to experiment as you have. But I

want some easy occupation for my declining years, with not too much

confinement or desk-work, which I cannot stand. You see I had some

reason for writing to you; but do not you trouble to write again unless

you have something to communicate.

With best wishes, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

I have not seen the _Fortnightly_ yet, but will do so.

* * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. October 11, 1880._

My dear Darwin,--I hope you will have received a copy of my last book,

"Island Life," as I shall be very glad of your opinion on certain points

in it. The first five chapters you need not read, as they contain

nothing fresh to you, but are necessary to make the work complete in

itself. The next five chapters, however (VII. to X.), I think, will

interest you. As I _think_, in Chapters VIII. and IX. I have found the

true explanation of geological climates, and on this I shall be very

glad of your candid opinion, as it is the very foundation-stone of the

book. The rest will not contain much that is fresh to you, except the

three chapters on New Zealand. Sir Joseph Hooker thinks my theory of

the Australian and New Zealand floras a decided advance on anything that

has been done before.

In connection with this, the chapter on the Azores should be read.

Chap. XVI. on the British Fauna may also interest you.

I mention these points merely that you may not trouble yourself to read

the whole book, unless you like.

Hoping that you are well, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. November 3, 1880._

My dear Wallace,--I have now read your book,[113] and it has interested me

deeply. It is quite excellent, and seems to me the best book which you

have ever published; but this may be merely because I have read it last.

As I went on, I made a few notes,[114] chiefly when I differed strongly

from you; but God knows whether they are worth your reading. You will be

disappointed with many of them; but they will show that I had the will,

though I did not know the way, to do what you wanted.

I have said nothing on the infinitely many passages and views which I

admired and which were new to me. My notes are badly expressed; but I

thought that you would excuse my taking any pains with my style. I wish

that my confounded handwriting was better.

I had a note the other day from Hooker, and I can see that he is _much_

pleased with the Dedication.

With all good wishes, believe me yours sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

In two or three weeks you will receive a book from me; if you care to

know what it is about, read the paragraph in Introduction about new

terms and then the last chapter, and you will know whole contents of

book.

* * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. November 8, 1880._

My dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your kind remarks and notes on my book.

Several of the latter will be of use to me if I have to prepare a second

edition, which I am not so sure of as you seem to be.

1. In your remark as to the doubtfulness of paucity of fossils being due

to coldness of water, I think you overlook that I am speaking _only_ of

waters in the latitude of the Alps, in Miocene and Eocene times, when

icebergs and glaciers temporarily descended into an otherwise warm sea;

my theory being that there was no glacial epoch at that time, but merely

a local and temporary descent of the snow-line and glaciers owing to

high excentricity and winter in _aphelion_.

2. I cannot see the difficulty about the cessation of the glacial

period. Between the Miocene and the Pleistocene periods geographical

changes occurred which rendered a true glacial period possible with

high excentricity. When the high excentricity passed away the glacial

epoch also passed away in the Temperate zone; but it persists in the

Arctic zone, where during the Miocene there were mild climates, and this

is due to the persistence of the changed geographical conditions. The

present Arctic climate is itself a comparatively new and abnormal state

of things due to geographical modification. As to "epoch" and "period,"

I use them as synonyms to avoid repeating the same word.

3. Rate of deposit and geological time: there no doubt I may have gone

to an extreme, but my "twenty-eight million years" may be anything under

100 millions, as I state. There is an enormous difference between _mean_

and _maximum_ denudation and deposition. In the case of the great faults

the upheaval along a given line would itself facilitate the denudation

(whether subaerial or marine) of the upheaved portion at a rate perhaps

a hundred times faster than plains and plateaux. So, local subsidence

might itself lead to very rapid deposition. Suppose a portion of the

Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Mississippi were to subside for a

few thousand years, it might receive the greater part of the sediment

from the whole Mississippi valley, and thus form strata at a very rapid

rate.

4. You quote the Pampas thistles, etc., against my statement of the

importance of preoccupation. But I am referring especially to St.

Helena, and to plants naturally introduced from the adjacent continents.

Surely, if a certain number of African plants reached the island and

became modified into a complete adaptation to its climatic conditions,

they would hardly be expelled by other African plants arriving

subsequently. They might be so conceivably, but it does not seem

probable. The cases of the Pampas, New Zealand, Tahiti, etc., are very

different, where highly developed _aggressive_ plants have been

artificially introduced. Under nature it is these very aggressive

species that would first reach any island in their vicinity, and, being

adapted to the island and colonising it thoroughly, would then hold

their own against other plants from the _same_ country, mostly less

aggressive in character. I have not explained this so fully as I should

have done in the book. Your criticism is therefore useful.

My Chap. XXIII. is no doubt very speculative, and I cannot wonder at

your hesitating at accepting my views. To me, however, your theory of

hosts of existing species migrating over the tropical lowlands from the

North Temperate to the South Temperate zone appears more speculative and

more improbable. For, where could the rich lowland _equatorial_ flora

have existed during a period of general refrigeration sufficient for

this? and what became of the wonderfully rich Cape flora which, if the

temperature of Tropical Africa had been so recently lowered, would

certainly have spread northwards and on the return of the heat could

hardly have been driven back into the sharply defined and _very

restricted area_ in which it now exists?

As to the migration of plants from mountain to mountain not being so

probable as to remote islands, I think that is fully counterbalanced by

two considerations:

(a) The area and abundance of the mountain stations along such a range

as the Andes are immensely greater than those of the islands in the

North Atlantic, for example.

(b) The temporary occupation of mountain stations by migrating plants

(which I think I have shown to be probable) renders _time_ a much more

important element in increasing the number and variety of the plants so

dispersed than in the case of islands, where the flora soon acquires a

fixed and endemic character, and where the number of species is

necessarily limited.

No doubt, direct evidence of seeds being carried great distances through

the air is wanted, but, I am afraid, can hardly be obtained. Yet I feel

the greatest confidence that they _are_ so carried. Take for instance

the two peculiar orchids of the Azores (Habinaria species): what other

mode of transit is conceivable? The whole subject is one of great

difficulty, but I hope my chapter may call attention to a hitherto

neglected factor in the distribution of plants.

Your references to the Mauritius literature are very interesting, and

will be useful to me; and again thanking you for your valuable remarks,

believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. November 21, 1880._

My dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your new book containing your wonderful

series of experiments and observations on the movements of plants. I

have read the introduction and conclusion, which shows me the importance

of the research as indicating the common basis of the infinitely varied

habits and mode of growth of plants. The whole subject becomes thus much

simplified, though the nature of the basic vitality which leads to such

wonderful results remains as mysterious as ever.--Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. January 1, 1881._

My dear Darwin,--I have been intending to write to you for some weeks to

call your attention to what seems to me a striking confirmation (or at

all events a support) of my views of the land migration of plants from

mountain to mountain. In _Nature_ of Dec. 9th, p. 126, Mr. Baker, of

Kew, describes a number of the alpine plants of Madagascar as being

_identical species_ with some found on the mountains of Abyssinia, the

Cameroons, and other African mountains. Now, if there is one thing more

clear than another it is that Madagascar has been separated from Africa

since the Miocene (probably the early Miocene) epoch. These plants must

therefore have reached the island either _since_ then, in which case

they certainly must have passed through the air for long distances, or

at the time of the union. But the Miocene and Eocene periods were

certainly warm, and these alpine plants could hardly have migrated over

tropical forest lands, while it is very improbable that if they had been

isolated at so remote a period, exposed to such distinct climatal and

organic environments as in Madagascar and Abyssinia, they would have in

both places retained their specific characters unchanged. The

presumption is, therefore, that they are comparatively _recent_

immigrants, and if so must have passed across the sea from mountain to

mountain, for the richness and speciality of the Madagascar forest

vegetation render it certain that no recent glacial epoch has seriously

affected that island.

Hoping that you are in good health, and wishing you the compliments of

the season, I remain yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 2, 1881._

My dear Wallace,--The case which you give is a very striking one, and I

had overlooked it in _Nature._[115] But I remain as great a heretic as

ever. Any supposition seems to me more probable than that the seeds of

plants should have been blown from the mountains of Abyssinia or other

central mountains of Africa to the mountains of Madagascar. It seems to

me almost infinitely more probable that Madagascar extended far to the

south during the Glacial period, and that the southern hemisphere was,

according to Croll, then more temperate; and that the whole of Africa

was then peopled with some temperate forms, which crossed chiefly by

agency of birds and sea-currents; and some few by the wind from the

shores of Africa to Madagascar, subsequently ascending to the mountains.

How lamentable it is that two men should take such widely different

views, with the same facts before them; but this seems to be almost

regularly our case, and much do I regret it.

I am fairly well, but always feel half dead with fatigue. I heard but an

indifferent account of your health some time ago, but trust that you are

now somewhat stronger.--Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very

sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 7, 1881._

My dear Wallace,--You know from Miss Buckley that, with her assistance,

I drew up a memorial to Mr. Gladstone with respect to your services to

science. The memorial was corrected by Huxley, who has aided me in every

possible way. It was signed by twelve good men, and you would have been

gratified if you had seen how strongly they expressed themselves on your

claims.

The Duke of Argyll, to whom I sent the memorial, wrote a private note to

Mr. Gladstone. The memorial was sent in only on January 5th, and I have

just received a note in Mr. Gladstone's own handwriting, in which he

says: "I lose no time in apprising you that although the Fund is

moderate and at present poor, I shall recommend Mr. Wallace for a

pension of £200 a year." I will keep this note carefully, as, if the

present Government were to go out, I do not doubt that it would be

binding on the next Government.

I hope that it will give you some satisfaction to see that not only

every scientific man to whom I applied, but that also our Government

appreciated your lifelong scientific labour.--Believe me, my dear

Wallace, yours sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

I should expect that there will be some delay before you receive an

official announcement.

* * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. January 8, 1881._

My dear Darwin,--I need not say how very grateful I am to you for your

constant kindness, and especially for the trouble you have taken in

recommending me to Mr. Gladstone. It is also, of course, very gratifying

to hear that so many eminent men have so good an opinion of the little

scientific work I have done, for I myself feel it to be very little in

comparison with that of many others.

The amount you say Mr. Gladstone proposes to recommend is considerably

more than I expected would be given, and it will relieve me from a great

deal of the anxieties under which I have laboured for several years.

To-day is my fifty-eighth birthday, and it is a happy omen that your

letter should have arrived this morning.

I presume after I receive the official communication will be the proper

time to thank the persons who have signed the memorial in my favour. I

do not know whether it is the proper etiquette to write a private letter

of thanks to Mr. Gladstone, or only a general official one. Whenever I

hear anything from the Government I will let you know.

Again thanking you for your kindness, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 10, 1881._

My dear Wallace,--I am heartily glad that you are pleased about the

memorial.

I do not feel that my opinion is worth much on the point which you

mention. A relation who is in a Government office and whose judgment, I

think, may be fully trusted, felt sure that if you received an official

announcement without any private note, it ought to be answered

officially, but if the case were mine, I would express whatever I

thought and felt in an official document. His reason was that Gladstone

gives or recommends the pension on public grounds alone.

If the case were mine I would not write to signers of the memorial,

because I believe that they acted like so many jurymen in a claim

against the Government. Nevertheless, if I met any of them or was

writing to them on any other subject, I should take the opportunity of

expressing my feelings. I think you might with propriety write to

Huxley, as he entered so heartily into the scheme and aided in the most

important manner in many ways.

Sir J. Lubbock called here yesterday and Mr. F. Balfour came here with

one of my sons, and it would have pleased you to see how unfeignedly

delighted they were at my news of the success of the memorial.

I wrote also to tell the Duke of Argyll of the success, and he in answer

expressed very sincere pleasure.--My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. January 29, 1881._

My dear Darwin,--Yours just received was very welcome, and the delay in

its reaching me is of no importance whatever, as, having seen the

announcement of the Queen's approval of the pension, of course I felt it

was safe. The antedating of the first payment is a very liberal and

thoughtful act; but I do not think it is any way exceptional as regards

myself. I am informed it is the custom because, as no payment is made

after the death of the person, if the first payment were delayed the

proposed recipient might die before the half-year (or quarter-day) and

thus receive nothing at all.

I suppose you sent the right address to Mr. Seymour. I have not yet

heard from him, but I daresay I shall during the next week.

As I am assured both by Miss Buckley and by Prof. Huxley that it is to

you that I owe in the first place this great kindness, and that you have

also taken an _immense_ amount of trouble to bring it to so successful

issue, I must again return you my best thanks, and assure you that there

is no one living to whose kindness in such a matter I could feel myself

indebted with so much pleasure and satisfaction.--Believe me, dear

Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 9._

My dear Wallace,--Dr. G. Krefft has sent me the enclosed from Sydney. A

nurseryman saw a caterpillar feeding on a plant and covered the whole

up, but, when he searched for the cocoon [pupa], was long before he

could find it, so good was its imitation, in colour and form, of the

leaf to which it was attached.

I hope that the world goes well with you. Do not trouble yourself by

acknowledging this.--Ever yours,

CH. DARWIN.

Accompanying this letter, which has been published in "Darwin and Modern

Science" (1909), was a photograph of the chrysalis (_Papilio sarpedon

choredon_) attached to a leaf of its food-plant. Many butterfly pupæ

are known to have the power of individual adjustment to the colours of

the particular food-plant or other normal environment; and it is

probable that the Australian _Papilio_ referred to by Darwin possesses

this power.

* * * * *

_Nutwood Cottage, Frith Hill, Godalming, July 9, 1881._

My dear Darwin,--I am just doing, what I have rarely if ever done

before--reading a book through a second time immediately after the first

perusal. I do not think I have ever been so attracted by a book, with

perhaps the exception of your "Origin of Species" and Spencer's "First

Principles" and "Social Statics." I wish therefore to call your

attention to it, in case you care about books on social and political

subjects, but here there is also an elaborate discussion of Malthus's

"Principles of Population," to which both you and I have acknowledged

ourselves indebted. The present writer, Mr. George, while admitting the

main principle as self-evident and as actually operating in the case of

animals and plants, denies that it ever has operated or can operate in

the case of man, still less that it has any bearing whatever on the vast

social and political questions which have been supported by a reference

to it. He illustrates and supports his views with a wealth of

illustrative facts and a cogency of argument which I have rarely seen

equalled, while his style is equal to that of Buckle, and thus his book

is delightful reading. The title of the book is "Progress and Poverty."

It has gone through six editions in America, and is now published in

England by Kegan Paul. It is devoted mainly to a brilliant discussion

and refutation of some of the most widely accepted maxims of political

economy, such as the relation of wages and capital, the nature of rent

and interest, the laws of distribution, etc., but all treated as parts

of the main problem as stated in the title-page, "An Enquiry into the

Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of

Wealth." It is the most startling novel and original book of the last

twenty years, and if I mistake not will in the future rank as making an

advance in political and social science equal to that made by Adam Smith

a century ago.

I am here settled in my little cottage engaged in the occupation I most

enjoy--making a garden, and admiring the infinite variety and beauty of

vegetable life. I am out of doors all day and hardly read anything. As

the long evenings come on I shall get on with my book on the "Land

Question," in which I have found a powerful ally in Mr. George.

Hoping you are well, believe me, yours most faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

The following is the last letter Wallace received from Darwin, who died

on Wednesday, April 19, 1882, in the seventy-fourth year of his age.

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 12, 1881._

My dear Wallace,--I have been heartily glad to get your note and hear

some news of you. I will certainly order "Progress and Poverty," for the

subject is a most interesting one. But I read many years ago some books

on political economy, and they produced a disastrous effect on my mind,

viz. utterly to distrust my own judgment on the subject and to doubt

much everyone else's judgment! So I feel pretty sure that Mr. George's

book will only make my mind worse confounded than it is at present. I,

also, have just finished a book which has interested me greatly, but

whether it would interest anyone else I know not: it is "The Creed of

Science," by W. Graham, A.M. Who and what he is I know not, but he

discusses many great subjects, such as the existence of God,

immortality, the moral sense, the progress of society, etc. I think some

of his propositions rest on very uncertain foundations, and I could get

no clear idea of his notions about God. Notwithstanding this and other

blemishes, the book has interested me _extremely_. Perhaps I have been

to some extent deluded, as he manifestly ranks too high what I have

done.

I am delighted to hear that you spend so much time out of doors and in

your garden; for with your wonderful power of observation you will see

much which no one else has seen. From Newman's old book (I forget the

title) about the country near Godalming, it must be charming.

We have just returned home after spending five weeks on Ullswater: the

scenery is quite charming; but I cannot walk, and everything tires me,

even seeing scenery, talking with anyone or reading much. What I shall

do with my few remaining years of life I can hardly tell. I have

everything to make me happy and contented, but life has become very

wearisome to me. I heard lately from Miss Buckley in relation to Lyell's

Life, and she mentioned that you were thinking of Switzerland, which I

should think and hope you will enjoy much.

I see that you are going to write on the most difficult political

question, the Land. Something ought to be done--but what is to rule? I

hope that you will [not] turn renegade to natural history; but I suppose

that politics are very tempting.

With all good wishes for yourself and family, believe me, my dear

Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CHARLES DARWIN.

* * * * *

Wallace's last letter to Darwin was written in October, 1881:

_Nutwood Cottage, Frith Hill, Godalming. October 18, 1881._

My dear Darwin,--I have delayed writing to thank you for your book on

Worms till I had been able to read it, which I have now done with great

pleasure and profit, since it has cleared up many obscure points as to

the apparent sinking or burying of objects on the surface and the

universal covering up of old buildings. I have hitherto looked upon them

chiefly from the gardener's point of view--as a nuisance, but I shall

tolerate their presence in the view of their utility and importance. A

friend here to whom I am going to lend your book tells me that an

agriculturist who had been in West Australia, near Swan River, told him

many years ago of the hopelessness of farming there, illustrating the

poverty and dryness of the soil by saying, "There are no worms in the

ground."

I do not see that you refer to the formation of leaf-mould by the mere

decay of leaves, etc. In favourable places many inches or even feet of

this is formed--I presume without the agency of worms. If so, would it

not take part in the formation of all mould? and also the decay of the

roots of grasses and of all annual plants, or do you suppose that _all_

these are devoured by worms? In reading the book I have not noticed a

single erratum.

I enclose you a copy of two letters to the _Mark Lane Express_, written

at the request of the editor, and which will show you the direction in

which I am now working, and in which I hope to do a little

good.--Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] "While at Hertford I lived altogether in five different houses, and

in three of these the Silk family lived next door to us, which involved

not only each family having to move about the same time, but also that

two houses adjoining each other should have been vacant together, and

that they should have been of the size required by each, which after the

first was not the same, the Silk family being much the larger."--"My

Life," i. 32.

[2] "My Life," i. 191-2.

[3] "My Life," i. 108-111.

[4] Darwin makes a similar comment: "I was very successful in

collecting, and invented two new methods ... and thus I got some very

rare species. No poet ever felt more delighted at seeing his first poem

published than I did at seeing, in Stephens' 'Illustrations of British

Insects,' the magic words, 'captured by C. Darwin, Esq.'"--Darwin's

Autobiography, in the one-volume "Life," p. 20.

[5] "My Life," i. 194-5.

[6] There is no record in his autobiography as to the exact date when he

first became acquainted with Lyell's work, though several times

reference is made to it.

[7] "Travels on the Amazon," p. 277.

[8] "Voyage of the _Beagle_," pp. 11-12.

[9] "Voyage of the _Beagle_," p. 534.

[10] It is interesting to note that the careers of Sir Joseph Hooker,

Charles Darwin, H.W. Bates, Alfred Russel Wallace and T.H. Huxley were

all determined by voyages or journeys of exploration.

[11] "Life of Charles Darwin" (one-volume Edit.), p. 29.

[12] "Voyage of the _Beagle_," p. 535.

[13] This letter may have been written for publication.

[14] A reference to the loss of his earlier collection (p. 29).

[15] The original of this letter is in the possession of the Trustees of

the British Museum.

[16] For the other part of this letter see "My Life," i. 379.

[17] "My early letters to Bates suffice to show that the great problem

of the origin of species was already distinctly formulated in my mind;

that I was not satisfied with the more or less vague solutions at that

time offered; that I believed the conception of evolution through

natural law so clearly formulated in the 'Vestiges' to be, so far as it

went, a true one; and that I firmly believed that a full and careful

study of the facts of nature would ultimately lead to a solution of the

mystery."--"My Life," i. 254-7.

[18] "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of

Species."--_Ann. and Mag. of Natural History_, 2nd Series, 1855, xvi.

184.

[19] "Life of Charles Darwin" (one-vol. Edit.), p. 171.

[20] "Life of Charles Darwin," (one-vol. Edit.), p. 40,

[21] _See post_, p. 112.

[22] "My Life," i. 359.

[23] "My Life," i. 361-3.

[24] It will be remembered, that Darwin died in April, 1882, twenty-six

years previously.

[25] "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," ii. 188.

[26] "The Herbert Spencer Lecture," delivered at the Museum, December 8,

1910. (Clarendon Press, Oxford.)

[27] "My Life," ii. 23-4.

[28] "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New

Species."--_Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist._, 1855. The law is thus stated

by Wallace: "Every species has come into existence coincident both in

time and space with a pre-existing closely-allied species."

[29] "The Origin of Species."

[30] "The Origin of Species."

[31] First Edit., 1859, pp. 1, 2.

[32] "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties and on the

Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection." By

C. Darwin and A.R. Wallace. Communicated by Sir C. Lyell and J.D.

Hooker. _Journ. Linn. Soc._, 1859, iii. 45. Read July 1st, 1858.

[33] "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species."

_Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist._, 1855, xvi. 184.

[34] This seems to refer to Wallace's paper on "The Zoological Geography

of the Malay Archipelago," _Journ. Linn. Soc._, 1860.

[35] Dr. Samuel Wilberforce.

[36] Now Major Leonard Darwin.

[37] The last sheet of the letter is missing.

[38] Wallace's paper was entitled "Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton's

Paper on the Bee's Cells and on the Origin of Species." Prof. Haughton's

paper appeared in the _Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist._, 1863, xi. 415.

Wallace's was published in the same journal.

[39] For March, 1864.

[40] _Reader_, April 16, 1864. An abstract of Wallace's paper "On the

Phenomena of Variation and Geographical Distribution, as illustrated by

the Papilionidæ of the Malayan Region," _Linn. Soc. Trans._, xxv.

[41] _Anthropolog. Rev._, 1864.

[42] _Nat. Hist. Rev._, 1864, p. 328.

[43] "Read June, 1864."--A.R.W.

[44] "June 8, 1864."--A.R.W.

[45] "Referring to my broken engagement."--A.R.W.

[46] Paper on the three forms of Lythrum.

[47] Probably the one on the Distribution of Malayan Butterflies, _Linn.

Soc. Trans._, xxv.

[48] E.B. Tylor's "Early History of Mankind," and Lecky's "Rationalism."

[49] "Prehistoric Times."

[50] The note speaks of the "characteristic unselfishness" with which

Wallace ascribed the theory of Natural Selection to Darwin.

[51] "Für Darwin."

[52] "On the Pigeons of the Malay Archipelago," _Ibis_, October, 1865.

Wallace points out (p. 366) that "the most striking superabundance of

pigeons, as well as of parrots, is confined to the Australo-Malayan

sub-regions in which ... the forest-haunting and fruit-eating mammals,

such as monkeys and squirrels, are totally absent." He points out also

that monkeys are "exceedingly destructive to eggs and young

birds."--Note, "More Letters," i. 265.

[53] "The Geographical Distribution and Variability of the Malayan

Papilionidæ," _Linn. Soc. Trans._, xxv.

[54] The passage referred to in this letter as needing farther

explanation is the following: "The last six cases of mimicry are

especially instructive, because they seem to indicate one of the

processes by which dimorphic forms have been produced. When, as in these

cases, one sex differs much from the other, and varies greatly itself,

it may be that individual variations will occasionally occur, having a

distant resemblance to groups which are the objects of mimicry, and

which it is therefore advantageous to resemble. Such a variety will have

a better chance of preservation; the individuals possessing it will be

multiplied; and their accidental likeness to the favoured group will be

rendered permanent by hereditary transmission, and each successive

variation which increases the resemblance being preserved, and all

variation departing from the favoured type having less chance of

preservation, there will in time result those singular cases of two or

more isolated and fixed forms bound together by that intimate

relationship which constitutes them the sexes of a single species. The

reason why the females are more subject to this kind of modification

than the males is probably that their slower flight when laden with

eggs, and their exposure to attack while in the act of depositing their

eggs upon leaves, render it especially advantageous for them to have

additional protection. This they at once obtain by acquiring a

resemblance to other species which, from whatever cause, enjoy a

comparative immunity from persecution."

[55] This no doubt refers to Janet's "Matérialisme Contemporain."

[56] _Quarterly Journal of Science_, January 7, 1867. "Ice Marks in

North Wales," by A.R. Wallace.

[57] I.e., the suggestion that conspicuous caterpillars or perfect

insects (e.g. white butterflies) which are distasteful to birds are

protected by being easily recognised and avoided.

[58] A bearded woman having an irregular double set of teeth. See

"Animals and Plants," ii. 328.

[59] The letter to which this is a reply is missing. It evidently refers

to Wallace's belief in the paramount importance of protection in the

evolution of colour. _See also_ Darwin's letter of February 26, 1867.

[60] _Menura superba._ See "The Descent of Man" (1901), p. 687.

Rhynchæa, mentioned on p. 184, is discussed in the "Descent," p. 727.

The female is more brightly coloured than the male and has a convoluted

trachea, elsewhere a masculine character. There seems some reason to

suppose that "the male undertakes the duty of incubation."

[61] _Westminster Review_, July, 1867.

[62] _Angræcum sesquipedale_, a Madagascar orchid, with a whip-like

nectary, 11 to 12 in. in length, which, according to Darwin

("Fertilisation of Orchids," 2nd Edit., p. 163), is adapted to the

visits of a moth with a proboscis of corresponding length. He points out

that there is no difficulty in believing in the existence of such a moth

as F. Müller had described (_Nature_, 1873, p. 223), a Brazilian

sphinx-moth with a trunk 10 to 11 in. in length. Moreover, Forbes had

given evidence to show that such an insect does exist in Madagascar

(_Nature_, 1873, p. 121). The case of _Angræcum_ was put forward by the

Duke of Argyll as being necessarily due to the personal contrivance of

the Deity. Mr. Wallace shows (p. 476, _Quarterly Journal of Science_,

1867) that both proboscis and nectary might be increased in length by

means of Natural Selection. It may be added that Hermann Müller has

shown good grounds for believing that mutual specialisation of this kind

is beneficial both to insect and to plant.

[63] "Variation of Animals and Plants," 1st Edit., ii. 431. "Did He

cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a

breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin

down the bull for man's brutal sport?"

[64] _See_ Wallace, _Quarterly Journ. of Sci._, 1867, pp. 477-8. He

imagined an observer examining a great river system, and finding

everywhere adaptations which reveal the design of the Creator. "He would

see special adaptations to the wants of man in the broad, quiet,

navigable rivers, through fertile alluvial plains, that would support a

large population, while the rocky streams and mountain torrents were

confined to those sterile regions suitable for a small population of

shepherds and herdsmen."

[65] At p. 485 Wallace deals with Fleeming Jenkin's review in the _North

British Review_, 1867. The review strives to show that there are strict

limitations to variation, since the most rigorous and long-continued

selection does not indefinitely increase such a quality as the fleetness

of a racehorse. On this Wallace remarks that the argument "fails to meet

the real question," which is not whether indefinite change is possible,

but "whether such differences as do occur in nature could have been

produced by the accumulation of variations by selection."

[66] Abstract of a paper on "Birds' Nests and Plumage," read before the

British Association. See _Gard. Chron._, 1867, p. 1047.

[67] Sir Henry Holland, Bart., M.D., F.R.S., a writer on Mental

Physiology and other scientific subjects (b. 1788, d. 1873).

[68] "This turns out to be inaccurate, or greatly exaggerated. There are

no true alpines, and the European genera are comparatively few. _See_ my

'Island Life,' p. 323."--A.R.W.

[69] "In pigeons" and "lizards" inserted by A.R.W.

[70] See _Westminster Review_, July, 1867, p. 37.

[71] _Proc. Linn. Soc._, 1867-8, p. 57.

[72] It is not enough that females should be produced from the males

with red feathers, which should be destitute of red feathers; but these

females must have a _latent tendency_ to produce such feathers,

otherwise they would cause deterioration in the red head-feathers of

their male offspring. Such latent tendency would be shown by their

producing the red feathers when old or diseased in their ovaria.

[73] The symbols [male symbol], [female symbol] stand for male and

female respectively.

[74] The fifth.

[75] Explained in letter of February 2, 1869. _See_ p. 234.

[76] June, 1867.

[77] "Malay Archipelago."

[78] "Malay Archipelago."

[79] The fifth edition, pp. 150-7.

[80] In the _Quarterly Review_, April, 1869.

[81] Inserted by A.R.W.

[82] "The Descent of Man."

[83] "The Genesis of Species," by St. G. Mivart. 1871.

[84] In the _Academy_, March 15, 1871.

[85] "Mr. Wallace says that the pairing of butterflies is probably

determined by the fact that one male is stronger-winged or more

pertinacious than the rest, rather than by the choice of the females. He

quotes the case of caterpillars which are brightly coloured and yet

sexless. Mr. Wallace also makes the good criticism that 'The Descent of

Man' consists of two books mixed together."--"Life and Letters of

Charles Darwin," iii. 137.

[86] G. Crotch was a well-known coleopterist and official in the

University Library at Cambridge.

[87] _Spectator_, March 11 and 18, 1871. "With regard to the evolution

of conscience the reviewer thinks that Mr. Darwin comes much nearer to

the 'kernel of the psychological problem' than many of his predecessors.

The second article contains a good discussion of the bearing of the

book on the question of design, and concludes by finding in it a

vindication of Theism more wonderful than that in Paley's 'Natural

Theology.'"--"Life and Letters," iii. 138.

[88] _North American Review_, Vol. 113, pp. 83, 84. Chauncey Wright

points out that the words omitted are "essential to the point on which

he [Mr. Mivart] cites Mr. Darwin's authority." It should be mentioned

that the passage from which words are omitted is not given within

inverted commas by Mr. Mivart.--_See_ "Life and Letters of Charles

Darwin," iii. 144.

[89] July, 1871.

[90] A review of Dr. Bree's book, "An Exposition of Fallacies in the

Hypotheses of Mr. Darwin."--_Nature_, July 25, 1872.

[91] "Bree on Darwinism," _Nature_, Aug. 8, 1872. The letter is as

follows: "Permit me to state--though the statement is almost

superfluous--that Mr. Wallace, in his review of Dr. Bree's work, gives

with perfect correctness what I intended to express, and what I believe

was expressed clearly, with respect to the probable position of man in

the early part of his pedigree. As I have not seen Dr. Bree's recent

work, and as his letter is unintelligible to me, I cannot even

conjecture how he has so completely mistaken my meaning; but, perhaps,

no one who has read Mr. Wallace's article, or who has read a work

formerly published by Dr. Bree on the same subject as his recent one,

will be surprised at any amount of misunderstanding on his

part.--CHARLES DARWIN, Aug. 3." _See_ "Life and Letters of Charles

Darwin," iii. 167.

[92] That is to say, spontaneous generation. For the distinction between

archebiosis and heterogenesis, _see_ Bastian, Chap. VI. _See also_ "Life

and Letters of Charles Darwin," iii. 168.

[93] Sir Henry Cole, K.C.B. (1808-80).

[94] "Expression of the Emotions."

[95] _Quarterly Journal of Science_, January, 1873, p. 116: "I can

hardly believe that when a cat, lying on a shawl or other soft material,

pats or pounds it with its feet, or sometimes sucks a piece of it, it is

the persistence of the habit of pressing the mammary glands and sucking

during kittenhood." Wallace goes on to say that infantine habits are

generally completely lost in adult life, and that it seems unlikely that

they should persist in a few isolated instances.

[96] Wallace speaks of "a readiness to accept the most marvellous

conclusions or interpretations of physiologists on what seem very

insufficient grounds," and he goes on to assert that the frog experiment

is either incorrectly recorded, or else that it "demonstrates volition,

and not reflex action."

[97] The raising of the hands in surprise is explained ("Expression of

the Emotions," 1st Edit., p. 287) on the doctrine of antithesis as being

the opposite of listlessness. Mr. Wallace's view (given in the second

edition of "Expression of the Emotions," p. 300) is that the gesture is

appropriate to sudden defence or to the giving of aid to another person.

[98] At this time Darwin, while very busy with other work, had to

prepare a second edition of "The Descent of Man," and it is probable

that he or the publishers suggested that Wallace should make the

necessary corrections.--EDITOR.

[99] "Insectivorous Plants."

[100] "The Geographical Distribution of Animals." 1876.

[101] Wallace points out that "hardly a small island on the globe but

has some land shell peculiar to it," and he goes so far as to say that

probably air-breathing mollusca have been chiefly distributed by air- or

water-carriage, rather than by voluntary dispersal on the land. _See_

"More Letters," II. 14.

[102] _See_ "The Descent of Man," 1st Edit., pp. 90 and 143, for

drawings of the Argus pheasant and its markings. The ocelli on the wing

feathers were favourite objects of Darwin's, and sometimes formed the

subject of the little lectures which on rare occasions he would give to

a visitor interested in Natural History. In Wallace's book, the meaning

of the ocelli comes in by the way, in the explanation of Plate IX., "A

Malayan Forest with some of its Peculiar Birds." The case is a

"remarkable confirmation of Mr. Darwin's views, that gaily coloured

plumes are developed in the male bird for the purpose of attractive

display."

[103] "Geographical Distribution of Animals," i. 286-7.

[104] "Geographical Distribution," i. 76. The name Lemuria was proposed

by Mr. Sclater for an imaginary submerged continent extending from

Madagascar to Ceylon and Sumatra. Wallace points out that if we confine

ourselves to facts Lemuria is reduced to Madagascar, which he makes a

subdivision of the Ethiopian Region.

[105] H.F. Blandford, "On the Age and Correlations of the Plant-bearing

Series of India and the Former Existence of an Indo-Oceanic Continent"

(_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc_., 1875, xxxi. 519).

[106] In the _Contemporary Review_ for August, 1873, Mr. George Darwin

wrote an article "On Beneficial Restrictions to Liberty of Marriage." In

the July number of the _Quarterly Review_, 1874, p. 70, in an article

entitled "Primitive Man--Tylor and Lubbock," Mr. Mivart thus referred to

Mr. Darwin's article: "Elsewhere (pp. 424-5) Mr. George Darwin speaks

(1) in an approving strain of the most oppressive laws and of the

encouragement of vice to check population. (2) There is no sexual

criminality of Pagan days that might not be defended on the principles

advocated by the school to which this writer belongs." In the _Quarterly

Review_ for October, 1874, p. 587, appeared a letter from Mr. George

Darwin "absolutely denying" charge No. 1, and with respect to charge No.

2 he wrote: "I deny that there is any thought or word in my essay which

could in any way lend itself to the support of the nameless crimes here

referred to." To the letter was appended a note from Mr. Mivart, in

which he said: "Nothing would have been further from our intention than

to tax Mr. Darwin personally (as he seems to have supposed) with the

advocacy of laws or acts which he saw to be oppressive or vicious. We,

therefore, most willingly accept his disclaimer, and are glad to find

that he does not, in fact, apprehend the full tendency of the doctrines

which he has helped to propagate. Nevertheless, we cannot allow that we

have enunciated a single proposition which is either 'false' or

'groundless.' ... But when a writer, according to his own confession,

comes before the public 'to attack the institution of marriage' ... he

must expect searching criticism; and, without implying that Mr. Darwin

has in 'thought' or 'word' approved of anything which he wishes to

disclaim, we must still maintain that the doctrines which he advocates

are most dangerous and pernicious."--EDITOR.

[107] The pages refer to Vol. II. of Wallace's "Geographical

Distribution."

[108] The number (4) was erroneously omitted.--A.R.W.

[109] An error: should have been the Australian.--A.R.W.

[110] Axel Blytt, "Essay on the Immigration of the Norwegian Flora."

Christiania, 1876.

[111] June 22, 1876, p. 165 _et seq._

[112] "The Origin of Species and Genera."

[113] "Island Life."

[114] In "My Life" (ii. 12-13) Wallace writes; "With this came seven

foolscap pages of notes, many giving facts from his extensive reading

which I had not seen. There were also a good many doubts and suggestions

on the very difficult questions in the discussion of the causes of the

glacial epochs. Chapter XXIII., discussing the Arctic element in South

Temperate floras, was the part he most objected to, saying, 'This is

rather too speculative for my old noddle. I must think that you overrate

the importance of new surfaces on mountains and dispersal from mountain

to mountain. I still believe in alpine plants having lived on the

lowlands and in the southern tropical regions having been cooled during

glacial periods, and thus only can I understand character of floras on

the isolated African mountains. It appears to me that you are not

justified in arguing from dispersal to oceanic islands to mountains. Not

only in latter cases currents of sea are absent, but what is there to

make birds fly direct from one alpine summit to another? There is left

only storms of wind, and if it is probable or possible that seeds may

thus be carried for great distances, I do not believe that there is at

present any evidence of their being thus carried more than a few miles.'

This is the most connected piece of criticism in the notes, and I

therefore give it verbatim."

[115] "_Nature_, December 9, 1880. The substance of this article by Mr.

Baker, of Kew, is given in 'More Letters,' vol. iii. 25, in a

footnote."--"My Life," ii. 13.