GROWTH OF THE “ORIGIN” (_continued_)--CORRESPONDENCE WITH FRIENDS.
The great periods of Darwin’s scientific career are marked by intimate
friendships, which must be taken into account in attempting to trace
his mental development. Henslow was his intimate friend at Cambridge
and during the voyage of the _Beagle_. The influence of Lyell, through
his writings, was of the utmost importance during the voyage, and was
deepened by the close personal contact which took place on Darwin’s
return. Sir Joseph Hooker was his most intimate friend during the
growth of the “Origin of Species.”
Although Hooker met Darwin in 1839, their friendship did not begin
until four years later, when the former returned from the Antarctic
Expedition. On January 11th, 1844, Darwin wrote admitting his
conclusions on the question of evolution:--“At last gleams of light
have come,” he says, “and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the
opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a
murder) immutable” (“Life and Letters,” Vol. II. p. 23).
[Sidenote: INQUIRIES AND EXPERIMENTS.]
From this point onwards his letters, especially to Hooker, indicate
the course he was following and the various problems he was considering
as they arose. Thus we find that he had finished reading Wollaston’s
“Insecta Maderensia” in 1855 (writing March 7th), and had been struck
with the very large proportion of wingless beetles, and had interpreted
the observation, viz. “that powers of flight would be injurious to
insects inhabiting a confined locality, and expose them to be blown
to the sea.” It is of great interest thus to witness the origin of a
theory which has since been universally accepted, and has received
confirmation from many parts of the world.
On April 11th of the same year he is experimenting on the powers of
resistance to immersion in salt water possessed by seeds, and he
writes an account of it to Hooker. The object of these experiments was
to throw light on the means by which plants have been transported to
islands.
In the same year began his correspondence with Asa Gray, who soon
became one of his warmest friends. He had numerous questions to ask
about the geographical range of plants, and in 1857 he wrote explaining
in some detail the views at which he had arrived as to the causes of
evolution.
My friend Rowland H. Wedgwood, a nephew of Darwin, has given me
the following interesting letter to his father, which was written,
he believes, probably before 1855. By kind permission, it is here
published for the first time. The letter is of great interest, as
throwing light upon his work, and also because of this early reference
to Huxley:--
“Down, _Sept. 5_.
“MY DEAR HARRY,--I am very much obliged for the Columbine seed
and for your note which made us laugh heartily.
“I had no idea what trouble the counting must have been, I had
not the least conception that there would have been so many pods.
I am very much interested on this point, and therefore to make
assurance sure, I repeat your figures viz. 560 and 742 pods on
two plants and 7200 on another. Does the latter number really
mean pods and not seeds? Upon my life I am sorry to give so much
trouble, but I should be VERY MUCH obliged for a few _average_
size pods, put up separately that I may count the seeds in each
pod: for though I counted the seeds in the pods sent before, I
hardly dare trust them without counting more. Moreover I sadly
want more seed itself for one of my experiments.
“The young cabbages are coming up already. Thank you much about
the asparagus seeds; as it is so rare a plant, you are my only
chance.
“We have been grieved to hear about poor Anne and Tom.--Your
affect^{te} screw
“C. DARWIN.
“Have you been acquainted with Mr. Huxley; I think you would find
him a pleasant acquaintance. He is a very clever man.”
Mr. Francis Darwin believes that the asparagus and cabbage seeds were
for the experiments to determine the time during which immersion in
salt water could be endured. The object of such experiments was to
throw light on the means by which plants are distributed over the
earth’s surface. He also informs me that the use of the word “screw” is
unique and incomprehensible.
Darwin tells us in the “Autobiography” that “early in 1856 Lyell
advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I began at once to
do so on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which was
afterwards followed in my ‘Origin of Species.’” This work he began on
May 14th, and, after working steadily until June, 1858, had written
about half the book, in ten chapters, when he received the celebrated
letter from Wallace, which altered everything.
[Sidenote: ON THE “ATLANTIS” THEORY.]
At this period we get interesting evidence of his extraordinary insight
in the strong protests he makes against the Atlantis hypothesis
of Edward Forbes, and the other vast continental extensions which
naturalists did not hesitate to make in order to explain the existence
of species common to countries separated by wide tracts of the ocean.
These lost continents were as generally accepted as they were freely
proposed. And yet we find that, even then, one thinker far ahead of his
time saw clearly enough--as the _Challenger_ Expedition twenty years
later proved beyond all doubt--that the geological evidence is against
such extension, and that the means of distribution possessed by animals
are such as to render the supposition unnecessary.
In June, 1856, he writes to Lyell: “My blood gets hot with passion and
turns cold alternately at the geological strides, which many of your
disciples are taking”; and after mentioning the extension of continents
proposed by many leading naturalists, he says: “If you do not stop
this, if there be a lower region for the punishment of geologists, I
believe, my great master, you will go there. Why, your disciples in
a slow and creeping manner beat all the old Catastrophists who ever
lived! You will live to be the great chief of the Catastrophists.”
Lyell wrote disagreeing on the subject of continental extension; and
hence, on June 25th, 1856, Darwin replied in a long letter, giving
in detail his reasons for rejecting the hypothesis. He argued (1)
that the supposed extension of continents and fusion of islands would
be vast changes, giving the earth a new aspect, but that recent and
tertiary molluscs, etc., are distinct on opposite sides of the existing
continents; so that, although he did not doubt _great_ changes of level
in parts of continents, he concluded that “_fundamentally_ they stood
as barriers to the sea where they now stand” ever since the appearance
of living species; (2) that if a continent were nearly submerged, the
last remaining peaks would by no means always be volcanic, as are,
almost without exception, the oceanic islands; (3) that the amount of
subsidence which took place in continental areas during the Silurian
and Carboniferous periods--viz. during one tolerably uniform set of
beings--would not be enough to account for the depth of the ocean over
some parts of the site of the supposed submerged continents; (4) that
the supposed extensions are not consistent with the _absence_ of many
groups of animals--_e.g._ mammals, frogs, etc.--from islands.
These arguments did not convince Lyell; and they have only received
an almost universal acceptance after the confirmatory evidence
afforded by the voyage of the _Challenger_. Dredgings over many parts
of the ocean showed that all the continental deposits are collected
on a fringing shelf not more than 200 miles wide, and that beyond
this in the ocean bed proper an entirely different kind of deposit is
accumulating, composed of the shells, bones, and teeth of swimming or
floating organisms, or the products of their decomposition, of volcanic
and cosmic dust, and the products--_e.g._ manganese dioxide--of the
decomposition of these and of floating pumice. Hence, the depths of the
ocean afford no indications of a lost continental area, but are covered
by a peculiar deposit unknown among the rocks of continents which were
formed in comparatively shallow water round and not far from coasts, or
in land-locked or nearly land-locked seas like the Mediterranean.
[Sidenote: EARLY CORRESPONDENCE.]
On July 20th, 1856, he wrote to Asa Gray, giving some account of his
views, and stating his belief in evolution, but only hinting at natural
selection.
About this time we meet with evidence of the great difficulty with
which Darwin’s ideas were thoroughly understood, even by his intimate
friends, to whom he often wrote on the subject. Later on, when the
“Origin of Species” was published, although the arguments in favour
of natural selection were given in considerable detail, many years
passed before the theory itself was understood by the great body of
naturalists. This particular case of misunderstanding is of such great
interest that it is desirable to consider it in detail.
In the origin of new species by natural selection, the stress
of competition determines the survival of favourable individual
variations, and these, when by the continued operation of the
process they have become constant, are added to those pre-existing
characters of the species which are inherited from a remote past,
and are witnesses of the operation of natural selection from age to
age under ever-changing conditions of competition and variation. It
follows, therefore, that the origin of a species can only take place
once; for it is infinitely improbable that the same variation would
be independently submitted under the same conditions of competition,
and added to the mass of inherited characters independently gained in
two distinct lines by natural selection acting in the same manner upon
the same variations in the same order through all ages. Not only is it
inconceivable that the same species could arise by natural selection
from distinct lines of ancestry, but it is extremely improbable that
the same species could arise independently in more than one centre
among the individuals of a changing species; for in this case, too,
it is most unlikely that the same conditions of competition would
co-exist with the same favourable variations in the areas inhabited by
independent colonies of the same species.
[Sidenote: EARLY CRITICISM.]
Under other theories of evolution--direct action of environment,
supposed inherited effects of use and disuse, etc.--an independent
origin, even from quite distinct lines, would be probable; and we find,
accordingly, that those who would advance such theories believe in what
is called the “polyphyletic” origin of species (_e.g._ the horse), and
in the principle of “convergence” carried far enough to produce the
same complex character (_e.g._ vertebrate teeth) twice over without any
genetic connection between the forms in which the character appears.
Under natural selection, however, such a result would be infinitely
improbable, and hence this theory strongly supports, and indeed
explains, the theory of “specific centres,” viz. that each species
has arisen in one area only, and has spread from that into the other
areas over which it now occurs. This view was strongly held by Lyell
and Hooker after an exhaustive study of the facts then known as to the
geographical distribution of plants and animals; and yet both of these
distinguished naturalists seem to have feared that Darwin, in advancing
a theory which was entirely consistent with their convictions and
utterly inconsistent with any other views upon the same subject, was in
some way undermining the conclusions at which they had arrived.
Thus Lyell wrote (July 25th, 1856) to Hooker:--
“I fear much that if Darwin argues that species are phantoms,
he will also have to admit that single centres of dispersion
are phantoms also, and that would deprive me of much of the
value which I ascribe to the present provinces of animals and
plants, as illustrating modern and tertiary changes in physical
geography.”
And on August 5th of the same year Darwin replied to Hooker, who had
apparently argued that the origin of species by direct action of
climate, etc., would mean independent and multiple specific centres:--
“I see from your remarks that you do not understand my notions
(whether or no worth anything) about modification; I attribute
very little to the direct action of climate, etc. I suppose, in
regard to specific centres, we are at cross purposes; I should
call the kitchen garden in which the red cabbage was produced,
or the farm in which Bakewell made the Shorthorn cattle,
the specific centre of these _species_! And surely this is
centralisation enough!”
As I have argued above, Darwin was all the time affording the strongest
support to the theory of specific centres: support which was entirely
wanting in the theory of separate creation, in which the origin of each
species is wrapped in mystery, so that we can form no opinion as to
whether it took place at one centre or at many.
At this time, when the views set forth in the “Origin” were gaining
shape and expression, we cannot estimate too highly the value of the
correspondence with Hooker. In after years, when the “Origin” had to
stand the fire of adverse criticism, and at first of very general
disapproval, it was of inestimable advantage that every idea contained
in it should have been minutely discussed beforehand with one who
was more critical and more learned than the greatest of those who
afterwards objected. Darwin tells us in his “Autobiography”:--
“I think that I can say with truth that in after years, though I
cared in the highest degree for the approbation of such men as
Lyell and Hooker, who were my friends, I did not care much about
the general public.”
But, although Darwin cared nothing for it, it is nevertheless true that
the approbation of minds such as these was a sure indication of the
general approbation of the intellect of the country, and of the world,
which was to follow as soon as the new ideas were absorbed.
[Sidenote: VALUE OF THE DISCUSSION.]
And the value which Darwin himself placed on these discussions appears
again and again in his letters. To take a single example, he writes to
Hooker November 23rd, 1856:--
“I fear I shall weary you with letters, but do not answer this,
for in truth and without flattery, I so value your letters,
that after a heavy batch, as of late, I feel that I have been
extravagant and have drawn too much money, and shall therefore
have to stint myself on another occasion.”