I do not THINK I have) how I view my work. Nineteen years (!) ago it
occurred to me that whilst otherwise employed on Natural History,
I might perhaps do good if I noted any sort of facts bearing on the
question of the origin of species, and this I have since been doing.
Either species have been independently created, or they have descended
from other species, like varieties from one species. I think it can
be shown to be probable that man gets his most distinct varieties by
preserving such as arise best worth keeping and destroying the others,
but I should fill a quire if I were to go on. To be brief, I ASSUME that
species arise like our domestic varieties with MUCH extinction; and
then test this hypothesis by comparison with as many general and pretty
well-established propositions as I can find made out,--in geographical
distribution, geological history, affinities, etc., etc. And it seems
to me that, SUPPOSING that such hypothesis were to explain such general
propositions, we ought, in accordance with the common way of following
all sciences, to admit it till some better hypothesis be found out. For
to my mind to say that species were created so and so is no scientific
explanation, only a reverent way of saying it is so and so. But it is
nonsensical trying to show how I try to proceed in the compass of a
note. But as an honest man, I must tell you that I have come to the
heterodox conclusion that there are no such things as independently
created species--that species are only strongly defined varieties. I
know that this will make you despise me. I do not much underrate the
many HUGE difficulties on this view, but yet it seems to me to explain
too much, otherwise inexplicable, to be false. Just to allude to one
point in your last note, viz., about species of the same genus
GENERALLY having a common or continuous area; if they are actual lineal
descendants of one species, this of course would be the case; and the
sadly too many exceptions (for me) have to be explained by climatal
and geological changes. A fortiori on this view (but on exactly
same grounds), all the individuals of the same species should have a
continuous distribution. On this latter branch of the subject I have
put a chapter together, and Hooker kindly read it over. I thought the
exceptions and difficulties were so great that on the whole the balance
weighed against my notions, but I was much pleased to find that it
seemed to have considerable weight with Hooker, who said he had never
been so much staggered about the permanence of species.
I must say one word more in justification (for I feel sure that your
tendency will be to despise me and my crotchets), that all my notions
about HOW species change are derived from long continued study of the
works of (and converse with) agriculturists and horticulturists; and
I believe I see my way pretty clearly on the means used by nature
to change her species and ADAPT them to the wondrous and exquisitely
beautiful contingencies to which every living being is exposed...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 30th 1856.
My dear Hooker,
Your letter is of MUCH value to me. I was not able to get a definite
answer from Lyell (On the continental extensions of Forbes and others.),
as you will see in the enclosed letters, though I inferred that
he thought nothing of my arguments. Had it not been for this
correspondence, I should have written sadly too strongly. You may
rely on it I shall put my doubts moderately. There never was such a
predicament as mine: here you continental extensionists would remove
enormous difficulties opposed to me, and yet I cannot honestly admit the
doctrine, and must therefore say so. I cannot get over the fact that not
a fragment of secondary or palaeozoic rock has been found on any island
above 500 or 600 miles from a mainland. You rather misunderstand me
when you think I doubt the POSSIBILITY of subsidence of 20,000 or 30,000
feet; it is only probability, considering such evidence as we have
independently of distribution. I have not yet worked out in full detail
the distribution of mammalia, both IDENTICAL and allied, with respect
to the ONE ELEMENT OF DEPTH OF THE SEA; but as far as I have gone, the
results are to me surprisingly accordant with my very most troublesome
belief in not such great geographical changes as you believe; and in
mammalia we certainly know more of MEANS of distribution than in any
other class. Nothing is so vexatious to me, as so constantly finding
myself drawing different conclusions from better judges than myself,
from the same facts.
I fancy I have lately removed many (not geographical) great difficulties
opposed to my notions, but God knows it may be all hallucination.
Please return Lyell's letters.
What a capital letter of Lyell's that to you is, and what a wonderful
man he is. I differ from him greatly in thinking that those who believe
that species are NOT fixed will multiply specific names: I know in my
own case my most frequent source of doubt was whether others would not
think this or that was a God-created Barnacle, and surely deserved
a name. Otherwise I should only have thought whether the amount of
difference and permanence was sufficient to justify a name: I am, also,
surprised at his thinking it immaterial whether species are absolute or
not: whenever it is proved that all species are produced by generation,
by laws of change, what good evidence we shall have of the gaps in
formations. And what a science Natural History will be, when we are
in our graves, when all the laws of change are thought one of the most
important parts of Natural History.
I cannot conceive why Lyell thinks such notions as mine or of
'Vestiges,' will invalidate specific centres. But I must not run on
and take up your time. My MS. will not, I fear, be copied before you go
abroad. With hearty thanks.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--After giving much condensed, my argument versus continental
extensions, I shall append some such sentence, as that two better judges
than myself have considered these arguments, and attach no weight to
them.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 5th [1856].
...I quite agree about Lyell's letters to me, which, though to me
interesting, have afforded me no new light. Your letters, under the
GEOLOGICAL point of view, have been more valuable to me. You cannot
imagine how earnestly I wish I could swallow continental extension,
but I cannot; the more I think (and I cannot get the subject out of my
head), the more difficult I find it. If there were only some half-dozen
cases, I should not feel the least difficulty; but the generality of the
facts of all islands (except one or two) having a considerable part of
their productions in common with one or more mainlands utterly staggers
me. What a wonderful case of the Epacridae! It is most vexatious, also
humiliating, to me that I cannot follow and subscribe to the way in
which you strikingly put your view of the case. I look at your facts
(about Eucalyptus, etc.) as DAMNING against continental extension, and
if you like also damning against migration, or at least of ENORMOUS
difficulty. I see the ground of our difference (in a letter I must put
myself on an equality in arguing) lies, in my opinion, that scarcely
anything is known of means of distribution. I quite agree with A. De
Candolle's (and I dare say your) opinion that it is poor work putting
together the merely POSSIBLE means of distribution; but I see no
other way in which the subject can be attacked, for I think that A. De
Candolle's argument, that no plants have been introduced into England
except by man's agency, [is] of no weight. I cannot but think that the
theory of continental extension does do some little harm as stopping
investigation of the means of dispersal, which, whether NEGATIVE or
positive, seems to me of value; when negatived, then every one who
believes in single centres will have to admit continental extensions.
...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!
I thank you most sincerely for all your assistance; and whether or no my
book may be wretched, you have done your best to make it less wretched.
Sometimes I am in very good spirits and sometimes very low about it. My
own mind is decided on the question of the origin of species; but, good
heavens, how little that is worth!...
[With regard to "specific centres," a passage from a letter dated July
25, 1856, by Sir Charles Lyell to Sir J.D. Hooker ('Life' ii. page 216)
is of interest:
"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."
He seems to have recognised, however, that the phantom doctrine would
soon have to be faced, for he wrote in the same letter: "Whether Darwin
persuades you and me to renounce our faith in species (when geological
epochs are considered) or not, I foresee that many will go over to the
indefinite modifiability doctrine."
In the autumn my father was still working at geographical distribution,
and again sought the aid of Sir J.D. Hooker.
A LETTER TO SIR J.D. HOOKER [September, 1856].
"In the course of some weeks, you unfortunate wretch, you will have my
MS. on one point of Geographical Distribution. I will however, never ask
such a favour again; but in regard to this one piece of MS., it is of
infinite importance to me for you to see it; for never in my life have
I felt such difficulty what to do, and I heartily wish I could slur the
whole subject over."
In a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (June, 1856), the following
characteristic passage occurs, suggested, no doubt, by the kind of work
which his chapter on Geographical Distribution entailed:
"There is wonderful ill logic in his [E. Forbes'] famous and admirable
memoir on distribution, as it appears to me, now that I have got it up
so as to give the heads in a page. Depend on it, my saying is a true
one, viz., that a compiler is a GREAT man, and an original man a
commonplace man. Any fool can generalise and speculate; but, oh, my
heavens! To get up AT SECOND HAND a New Zealand Flora, that is work."
CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. October 3 [1856].
...I remember you protested against Lyell's advice of writing a
SKETCH of my species doctrines. Well, when I began I found it such
unsatisfactory work that I have desisted, and am now drawing up my work
as perfect as my materials of nineteen years' collecting suffice, but do
not intend to stop to perfect any line of investigation beyond current
work. Thus far and no farther I shall follow Lyell's urgent advice. Your
remarks weighed with me considerably. I find to my sorrow it will run
to quite a big book. I have found my careful work at pigeons really
invaluable, as enlightening me on many points on variation under
domestication. The copious old literature, by which I can trace the
gradual changes in the breeds of pigeons has been extraordinarily useful
to me. I have just had pigeons and fowls ALIVE from the Gambia! Rabbits
and ducks I am attending to pretty carefully, but less so than pigeons.
I find most remarkable differences in the skeletons of rabbits. Have you
ever kept any odd breeds of rabbits, and can you give me any details?
One other question: You used to keep hawks; do you at all know, after
eating a bird, how soon after they throw up the pellet?
No subject gives me so much trouble and doubt and difficulty as the
means of dispersal of the same species of terrestrial productions on
the oceanic islands. Land mollusca drive me mad, and I cannot anyhow get
their eggs to experimentise their power of floating and resistance to
the injurious action of salt water. I will not apologise for writing
so much about my own doings, as I believe you will like to hear. Do
sometime, I beg you, let me hear how you get on in health; and IF SO
INCLINED, let me have some words on call-ducks.
My dear Fox, yours affectionately, CH. DARWIN.
[With regard to his book he wrote (November 10th) to Sir Charles Lyell]:
"I am working very steadily at my big book; I have found it quite
impossible to publish any preliminary essay or sketch; but am doing
my work as completely as my present materials allow without waiting to
perfect them. And this much acceleration I owe to you."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Sunday [October 1856].
My dear Hooker,
The seeds are come all safe, many thanks for them. I was very sorry to
run away so soon and miss any part of my MOST pleasant evening; and I
ran away like a Goth and Vandal without wishing Mrs. Hooker good-bye;
but I was only just in time, as I got on the platform the train had
arrived.
I was particularly glad of our discussion after dinner, fighting a
battle with you always clears my mind wonderfully. I groan to hear that
A. Gray agrees with you about the condition of Botanical Geography.
All I know is that if you had had to search for light in Zoological
Geography you would by contrast, respect your own subject a vast deal
more than you now do. The hawks have behaved like gentlemen, and have
cast up pellets with lots of seeds in them; and I have just had a parcel
of partridge's feet well caked with mud!!! (The mud in such cases often
contains seeds, so that plants are thus transported.) Adios.
Your insane and perverse friend, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 4th [1856].
My dear Hooker,
I thank you more CORDIALLY than you will think probable, for your note.
Your verdict (On the MS. relating to geographical distribution.) has
been a great relief. On my honour I had no idea whether or not you would
say it was (and I knew you would say it very kindly) so bad, that you
would have begged me to have burnt the whole. To my own mind my MS.
relieved me of some few difficulties, and the difficulties seemed to me
pretty fairly stated, but I had become so bewildered with conflicting
facts, evidence, reasoning and opinions, that I felt to myself that
I had lost all judgment. Your general verdict is INCOMPARABLY more
favourable than I had anticipated...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 23rd [1856].
My dear Hooker,
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.
When I sent my MS. I felt strongly that some preliminary questions on
the causes of variation ought to have been sent you. Whether I am
right or wrong in these points is quite a separate question, but the
conclusion which I have come to, quite independently of geographical
distribution, is that external conditions (to which naturalists so often
appeal) do by themselves VERY LITTLE. How much they do is the point of
all others on which I feel myself very weak. I judge from the facts
of variation under domestication, and I may yet get more light. But at
present, after drawing up a rough copy on this subject, my conclusion
is that external conditions do EXTREMELY little, except in causing mere
variability. This mere variability (causing the child NOT closely to
resemble its parent) I look at as VERY different from the formation of a
marked variety or new species. (No doubt the variability is governed
by laws, some of which I am endeavouring very obscurely to trace.) The
formation of a strong variety or species I look a as almost wholly due
to the selection of what may be incorrectly called CHANCE variations or
variability. This power of selection stands in the most direct relation
to time, and in the state of nature can be only excessively slow. Again,
the slight differences selected, by which a race or species is at last
formed, stands, as I think can be shown (even with plants, and obviously
with animals), in a far more important relation to its associates than
to external conditions. Therefore, according to my principles, whether
right or wrong, I cannot agree with your proposition that time, and
altered conditions, and altered associates, are 'convertible terms.'
I look at the first and the last as FAR more important: time being
important only so far as giving scope to selection. God knows whether
you will perceive at what I am driving. I shall have to discuss and
think more about your difficulty of the temperate and sub-arctic forms
in the S. hemisphere than I have yet done. But I am inclined to think
that I am right (if my general principles are right), that there would
be little tendency to the formation of a new species, during the period
of migration, whether shorter or longer, though considerable variability
may have supervened...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. December 24th [1856].
...How I do wish I lived near you to discuss matters with. I have
just been comparing definitions of species, and stating briefly how
systematic naturalists work out their subjects. Aquilegia in the Flora
Indica was a capital example for me. It is really laughable to see what
different ideas are prominent in various naturalists' minds, when they
speak of "species;" in some, resemblance is everything and descent
of little weight--in some, resemblance seems to go for nothing, and
Creation the reigning idea--in some, descent is the key,--in some,
sterility an unfailing test, with others it is not worth a farthing. It
all comes, I believe, from trying to define the undefinable. I
suppose you have lost the odd black seed from the birds' dung, which
germinated,--anyhow, it is not worth taking trouble over. I have now got
about a dozen seeds out of small birds' dung. Adios,
My dear Hooker, ever yours, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, January 1st [1857?].
My dear Dr Gray,
I have received the second part of your paper ('Statistics of the Flora
of the Northern United States.' "Silliman's Journal", 1857.), and though
I have nothing particular to say, I must send you my thanks and hearty
admiration. The whole paper strikes me as quite exhausting the subject,
and I quite fancy and flatter myself I now appreciate the character
of your Flora. What a difference in regard to Europe your remark in
relation to the genera makes! I have been eminently glad to see your
conclusion in regard to the species of large genera widely ranging; it
is in strict conformity with the results I have worked out in several
ways. It is of great importance to my notions. By the way you have
paid me a GREAT compliment ("From some investigations of his own, this
sagacious naturalist inclines to think that [the species of] large
genera range over a larger area than the species of small genera
do."--Asa Gray, loc. cit.): to be SIMPLY mentioned even in such a paper
I consider a very great honour. One of your conclusions makes me groan,
viz., that the line of connection of the strictly alpine plants is
through Greenland. I should EXTREMELY like to see your reasons published
in detail, for it "riles" me (this is a proper expression, is it not?)
dreadfully. Lyell told me, that Agassiz having a theory about when
Saurians were first created, on hearing some careful observations
opposed to this, said he did not believe it, "for Nature never lied."
I am just in this predicament, and repeat to you that, "Nature never
lies," ergo, theorisers are always right...
Overworked as you are, I dare say you will say that I am an odious
plague; but here is another suggestion! I was led by one of my wild
speculations to conclude (though it has nothing to do with geographical
distribution, yet it has with your statistics) that trees would have a
strong tendency to have flowers with dioecious, monoecious or polygamous
structure. Seeing that this seemed so in Persoon, I took one little
British Flora, and discriminating trees from bushes according to Loudon,
I have found that the result was in species, genera and families, as I
anticipated. So I sent my notions to Hooker to ask him to tabulate the
New Zealand Flora for this end, and he thought my result sufficiently
curious, to do so; and the accordance with Britain is very striking, and
the more so, as he made three classes of trees, bushes, and herbaceous
plants. (He says further he shall work the Tasmanian Flora on the same
principle.) The bushes hold an intermediate position between the other
two classes. It seems to me a curious relation in itself, and is very
much so, if my theory and explanation are correct. (See 'Origin,'
Edition i., page 100.)
With hearty thanks, your most troublesome friend, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 12th [1857].
My dear Hooker,
Your letter has pleased me much, for I never can get it out of my head,
that I take unfair advantage of your kindness, as I receive all and give
nothing. What a splendid discussion you could write on the whole subject
of variation! The cases discussed in your last note are valuable to me
(though odious and damnable), as showing how profoundly ignorant we are
on the causes of variation. I shall just allude to these cases, as a
sort of sub-division of polymorphism a little more definite, I fancy,
than the variation of, for instance, the Rubi, and equally or more
perplexing.
I have just been putting my notes together on variations APPARENTLY due
to the immediate and direct action of external causes; and I have been
struck with one result. The most firm sticklers for independent creation
admit, that the fur of the SAME species is thinner towards the south of
the range of the same species than to the north--that the SAME shells
are brighter-coloured to the south than north; that the same [shell]
is paler-coloured in deep water--that insects are smaller and darker on
mountains--more livid and testaceous near sea--that plants are smaller
and more hairy and with brighter flowers on mountains: now in all such,
and other cases, distinct species in the two zones follow the same rule,
which seems to me to be most simply explained by species, being only
strongly marked varieties, and therefore following the same laws as
recognised and admitted varieties. I mention all this on account of the
variation of plants in ascending mountains; I have quoted the foregoing
remark only generally with no examples, for I add, there is so much
doubt and dispute what to call varieties; but yet I have stumbled on
so many casual remarks on VARIETIES of plants on mountains being so
characterised, that I presume there is some truth in it. What think
you? Do you believe there is ANY tendency in VARIETIES, as GENERALLY
so-called, of plants to become more hairy and with proportionally larger
and brighter-coloured flowers in ascending a mountain?
I have been interested in my "weed garden," of 3 x 2 feet square: I mark
each seedling as it appears, and I am astonished at the number that come
up, and still more at the number killed by slugs, etc. Already 59 have
been so killed; I expected a good many, but I had fancied that this
was a less potent check than it seems to be, and I attributed almost
exclusively to mere choking, the destruction of the seedlings.
Grass-seedlings seem to suffer much less than exogens...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Farnham [April (?) 1857].
My dear Hooker,
Your letter has been forwarded to me here, where I am undergoing
hydropathy for a fortnight, having been here a week, and having already
received an amount of good which is quite incredible to myself and quite
unaccountable. I can walk and eat like a hearty Christian, and even my
nights are good. I cannot in the least understand how hydropathy can act
as it certainly does on me. It dulls one's brain splendidly; I have not
thought about a single species of any kind since leaving home. Your note
has taken me aback; I thought the hairiness, etc., of Alpine SPECIES
was generally admitted; I am sure I have seen it alluded to a score of
times. Falconer was haranguing on it the other day to me. Meyen or Gay,
or some such fellow (whom you would despise), I remember, makes some
remark on Chilian Cordillera plants. Wimmer has written a little book on
the same lines, and on VARIETIES being so characterised in the Alps.
But after writing to you, I confess I was staggered by finding one
man (Moquin-Tandon, I think) saying that Alpine flowers are strongly
inclined to be white, and Linnaeus saying that cold makes plants
APETALOUS, even the same species! Are Arctic plants often apetalous? My
general belief from my compiling work is quite to agree with what
you say about the little direct influence of climate; and I have
just alluded to the hairiness of Alpine plants as an EXCEPTION. The
odoriferousness would be a good case for me if I knew of VARIETIES being
more odoriferous in dry habitats.
I fear that I have looked at the hairiness of Alpine plants as so
generally acknowledged that I have not marked passages, so as at all
to see what kind of evidence authors advance. I must confess, the other
day, when I asked Falconer, whether he knew of INDIVIDUAL plants losing
or acquiring hairiness when transported, he did not. But now THIS
SECOND, my memory flashes on me, and I am certain I have somewhere
got marked a case of hairy plants from the Pyrenees losing hairs when
cultivated at Montpellier. Shall you think me very impudent if I tell
you that I have sometimes thought that (quite independently of the
present case), you are a little too hard on bad observers; that a remark
made by a bad observer CANNOT be right; an observer who deserves to be
damned you would utterly damn. I feel entire deference to any remark you
make out of your own head; but when in opposition to some poor devil, I
somehow involuntarily feel not quite so much, but yet much deference for
your opinion. I do not know in the least whether there is any truth in
this my criticism against you, but I have often thought I would tell you
it.
I am really very much obliged for your letter, for, though I intended to
put only one sentence and that vaguely, I should probably have put that
much too strongly.
Ever, my dear Hooker, yours most truly, C. DARWIN.
P.S. This note, as you see, has not anything requiring an answer.
The distribution of fresh-water molluscs has been a horrid incubus to
me, but I think I know my way now; when first hatched they are very
active, and I have had thirty or forty crawl on a dead duck's foot; and
they cannot be jerked off, and will live fifteen and even twenty-four
hours out of water.
[The following letter refers to the expedition of the Austrian frigate
"Novara"; Lyell had asked my father for suggestions.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, February 11th [1857].
My dear Lyell,
I was glad to see in the newspapers about the Austrian Expedition. I
have nothing to add geologically to my notes in the Manual. (The article
"Geology" in the Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry.) I do not know
whether the Expedition is tied down to call at only fixed spots. But
if there be any choice or power in the scientific men to influence
the places--this would be most desirable. It is my most deliberate
conviction that nothing would aid more, Natural History, than careful
collecting and investigating ALL THE PRODUCTIONS of the most isolated
islands, especially of the southern hemisphere. Except Tristan d'Acunha
and Kerguelen Land, they are very imperfectly known; and even at
Kerguelen Land, how much there is to make out about the lignite beds,
and whether there are signs of old Glacial action. Every sea shell and
insect and plant is of value from such spots. Some one in the Expedition
especially ought to have Hooker's New Zealand Essay. What grand work to
explore Rodriguez, with its fossil birds, and little known productions
of every kind. Again the Seychelles, which, with the Cocos so near, must
be a remnant of some older land. The outer island of Juan Fernandez
is little known. The investigation of these little spots by a band of
naturalists would be grand; St. Paul's and Amsterdam would be glorious,
botanically, and geologically. Can you not recommend them to get my
'Journal' and 'Volcanic Islands' on account of the Galapagos. If they
come from the north it will be a shame and a sin if they do not call
at Cocos Islet, one of the Galapagos. I always regretted that I was
not able to examine the great craters on Albemarle Island, one of the
Galapagos. In New Zealand urge on them to look out for erratic boulders
and marks of old glaciers.
Urge the use of the dredge in the Tropics; how little or nothing we know
of the limit of life downward in the hot seas?
My present work leads me to perceive how much the domestic animals have
been neglected in out of the way countries.
The Revillagigedo Island off Mexico, I believe, has never been trodden
by foot of naturalist.
If the expedition sticks to such places as Rio, Cape of Good Hope,
Ceylon and Australia, etc., it will not do much.
Ever yours most truly, C. DARWIN.
[The following passage occurs in a letter to Mr. Fox, February 22, 1857,
and has reference to the book on Evolution on which he was still at
work. The remainder of the letter is made up in details of no interest:
"I am got most deeply interested in my subject; though I wish I could
set less value on the bauble fame, either present or posthumous, than
I do, but not I think, to any extreme degree: yet, if I know myself, I
would work just as hard, though with less gusto, if I knew that my book
would be published for ever anonymously."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Moor Park, May 1st, 1857.
My dear Sir,
I am much obliged for your letter of October 10th, from Celebes,
received a few days ago; in a laborious undertaking, sympathy is a
valuable and real encouragement. By your letter and even still more
by your paper ('On the law that has regulated the introduction of new
species.'--Ann. Nat. Hist., 1855.) in the Annals, a year or more ago, I
can plainly see that we have thought much alike and to a certain extent
have come to similar conclusions. In regard to the Paper in the Annals,
I agree to the truth of almost every word of your paper; and I dare
say that you will agree with me that it is very rare to find oneself
agreeing pretty closely with any theoretical paper; for it is lamentable
how each man draws his own different conclusions from the very same
facts. This summer will make the 20th year (!) since I opened my first
note-book, on the question how and in what way do species and varieties
differ from each other. I am now preparing my work for publication,
but I find the subject so very large, that though I have written many
chapters, I do not suppose I shall go to press for two years. I have
never heard how long you intend staying in the Malay Archipelago; I wish
I might profit by the publication of your Travels there before my work
appears, for no doubt you will reap a large harvest of facts. I have
acted already in accordance with your advice of keeping domestic
varieties, and those appearing in a state of nature, distinct; but I
have sometimes doubted of the wisdom of this, and therefore I am glad to
be backed by your opinion. I must confess, however, I rather doubt the
truth of the now very prevalent doctrine of all our domestic animals
having descended from several wild stocks; though I do not doubt that
it is so in some cases. I think there is rather better evidence on the
sterility of hybrid animals than you seem to admit: and in regard to
plants the collection of carefully recorded facts by Kolreuter and
Gaertner (and Herbert,) is ENORMOUS. I most entirely agree with you on
the little effects of "climatal conditions," which one sees referred
to ad nauseam in all books: I suppose some very little effect must be
attributed to such influences, but I fully believe that they are very
slight. It is really IMPOSSIBLE to explain my views (in the compass of a
letter), on the causes and means of variation in a state of nature; but
I have slowly adopted a distinct and tangible idea,--whether true or
false others must judge; for the firmest conviction of the truth of a
doctrine by its author, seems, alas, not to be the slightest guarantee
of truth!...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Saturday [May 2nd, 1857].
My dear Hooker,
You have shaved the hair off the Alpine plants pretty effectually.
The case of the Anthyllis will make a "tie" with the believed case of
Pyrenees plants becoming glabrous at low levels. If I DO find that I
have marked such facts, I will lay the evidence before you. I wonder how
the belief could have originated! Was it through final causes to keep
the plants warm? Falconer in talk coupled the two facts of woolly Alpine
plants and mammals. How candidly and meekly you took my Jeremiad on your
severity to second-class men. After I had sent it off, an ugly little
voice asked me, once or twice, how much of my noble defence of the
poor in spirit and in fact, was owing to your having not seldom smashed
favourite notions of my own. I silenced the ugly little voice with
contempt, but it would whisper again and again. I sometimes despise
myself as a poor compiler as heartily as you could do, though I do
NOT despise my whole work, as I think there is enough known to lay a
foundation for the discussion on the origin of species. I have been led
to despise and laugh at myself as a compiler, for having put down that
"Alpine plants have large flowers," and now perhaps I may write over
these very words, "Alpine plants have small or apetalous flowers!"...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [May] 16th [1857].
My dear Hooker,
You said--I hope honestly--that you did not dislike my asking questions
on general points, you of course answering or not as time or inclination
might serve. I find in the animal kingdom that the proposition that any
part or organ developed normally (i.e., not a monstrosity) in a species
in any HIGH or UNUSUAL degree, compared with the same part or organ in
allied species, tends to be HIGHLY VARIABLE. I cannot doubt this from
my mass of collected facts. To give an instance, the Cross-bill is
very abnormal in the structure of its bill compared with other allied
Fringillidae, and the beak is EMINENTLY VARIABLE. The Himantopus,
remarkable from the wonderful length of its legs, is VERY variable in
the length of its legs. I could give MANY most striking and curious
illustrations in all classes; so many that I think it cannot be chance.
But I have NONE in the vegetable kingdom, owing, as I believe, to my
ignorance. If Nepenthes consisted of ONE or two species in a group with
a pitcher developed, then I should have expected it to have been very
variable; but I do not consider Nepenthes a case in point, for when a
whole genus or group has an organ, however anomalous, I do not expect
it to be variable,--it is only when one or few species differ greatly in
some one part or organ from the forms CLOSELY ALLIED to it in all other
respects, that I believe such part or organ to be highly variable. Will
you turn this in your mind? It is an important apparent LAW (!) for me.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--I do not know how far you will care to hear, but I find
Moquin-Tandon treats in his 'Teratologie' on villosity of plants, and
seems to attribute more to dryness than altitude; but seems to think
that it must be admitted that mountain plants are villose, and that this
villosity is only in part explained by De Candolle's remark that the
dwarfed condition of mountain plants would condense the hairs, and
so give them the APPEARANCE of being more hairy. He quotes Senebier,
'Physiologie Vegetale,' as authority--I suppose the first authority, for
mountain plants being hairy.
If I could show positively that the endemic species were more hairy in
dry districts, then the case of the varieties becoming more hairy in dry
ground would be a fact for me.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 3rd [1857].
My dear Hooker,
I am going to enjoy myself by having a prose on my own subjects to you,
and this is a greater enjoyment to me than you will readily understand,
as I for months together do not open my mouth on Natural History.
Your letter is of great value to me, and staggers me in regard to my
proposition. I dare say the absence of botanical facts may in part be
accounted for by the difficulty of measuring slight variations. Indeed,
after writing, this occurred to me; for I have Crucianella stylosa
coming into flower, and the pistil ought to be very variable in length,
and thinking of this I at once felt how could one judge whether it was
variable in any high degree. How different, for instance, from the
beak of a bird! But I am not satisfied with this explanation, and am
staggered. Yet I think there is something in the law; I have had so
many instances, as the following: I wrote to Wollaston to ask him to
run through the Madeira Beetles and tell me whether any one presented
anything very anomalous in relation to its allies. He gave me a unique
case of an enormous head in a female, and then I found in his book,
already stated, that the size of the head was ASTONISHINGLY variable.
Part of the difference with plants may be accounted for by many of
my cases being secondary male or FEMALE characters, but then I have
striking cases with hermaphrodite Cirripedes. The cases seem to me
far too numerous for accidental coincidences, of great variability and
abnormal development. I presume that you will not object to my putting a
note saying that you had reflected over the case, and though one or
two cases seemed to support, quite as many or more seemed wholly
contradictory. This want of evidence is the more surprising to me, as
generally I find any proposition more easily tested by observations in
botanical works, which I have picked up, than in zoological works. I
never dreamed that you had kept the subject at all before your
mind. Altogether the case is one more of my MANY horrid puzzles. My
observations, though on so infinitely a small scale, on the struggle for
existence, begin to make me see a little clearer how the fight goes on.
Out of sixteen kinds of seed sown on my meadow, fifteen have germinated,
but now they are perishing at such a rate that I doubt whether more than
one will flower. Here we have choking which has taken place likewise on
a great scale, with plants not seedlings, in a bit of my lawn allowed
to grow up. On the other hand, in a bit of ground, 2 by 3 feet, I have
daily marked each seedling weed as it has appeared during March, April
and May, and 357 have come up, and of these 277 have ALREADY been killed
chiefly by slugs. By the way, at Moor Park, I saw rather a pretty case
of the effects of animals on vegetation: there are enormous commons with
clumps of old Scotch firs on the hills, and about eight or ten years ago
some of these commons were enclosed, and all round the clumps nice young
trees are springing up by the million, looking exactly as if planted,
so many are of the same age. In other parts of the common, not yet
enclosed, I looked for miles and not ONE young tree could be seen.
I then went near (within quarter of a mile of the clumps) and looked
closely in the heather, and there I found tens of thousands of young
Scotch firs (thirty in one square yard) with their tops nibbled off by
the few cattle which occasionally roam over these wretched heaths. One
little tree, three inches high, by the rings appeared to be twenty-six
years old, with a short stem about as thick as a stick of sealing-wax.
What a wondrous problem it is, what a play of forces, determining the
kind and proportion of each plant in a square yard of turf! It is to my
mind truly wonderful. And yet we are pleased to wonder when some animal
or plant becomes extinct.
I am so sorry that you will not be at the Club. I see Mrs. Hooker is
going to Yarmouth; I trust that the health of your children is not the
motive. Good-bye.
My dear Hooker, ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--I believe you are afraid to send me a ripe Edwardsia pod, for fear
I should float it from New Zealand to Chile!!!
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 5 [1857].
My dear Hooker,
I honour your conscientious care about the medals. (The Royal Society's
medals.) Thank God! I am only an amateur (but a much interested one) on
the subject.
It is an old notion of mine that more good is done by giving medals to
younger men in the early part of their career, than as a mere reward to
men whose scientific career is nearly finished. Whether medals ever do
any good is a question which does not concern us, as there the medals
are. I am almost inclined to think that I would rather lower the
standard, and give medals to young workers than to old ones with
no ESPECIAL claims. With regard to especial claims, I think it just
deserving your attention, that if general claims are once admitted, it
opens the door to great laxity in giving them. Think of the case of
a very rich man, who aided SOLELY with his money, but to a grand
extent--or such an inconceivable prodigy as a minister of the Crown who
really cared for science. Would you give such men medals? Perhaps medals
could not be better applied than EXCLUSIVELY to such men. I confess at
present I incline to stick to especial claims which can be put down on
paper...
I am much confounded by your showing that there are not obvious
instances of my (or rather Waterhouse's) law of abnormal developments
being highly variable. I have been thinking more of your remark about
the difficulty of judging or comparing variability in plants from the
great general variability of parts. I should look at the law as more
completely smashed if you would turn in your mind for a little while
for cases of great variability of an organ, and tell me whether it is
moderately easy to pick out such cases; For IF THEY CAN BE PICKED
OUT, and, notwithstanding, do not coincide with great or abnormal
development, it would be a complete smasher. It is only beginning in
your mind at the variability end of the question instead of at the
abnormality end. PERHAPS cases in which a part is highly variable in all
the species of a group should be excluded, as possibly being something
distinct, and connected with the perplexing subject of polymorphism.
Will you perfect your assistance by further considering, for a little,
the subject this way?
I have been so much interested this morning in comparing all my notes on
the variation of the several species of the genus Equus and the results
of their crossing. Taking most strictly analogous facts amongst the
blessed pigeons for my guide, I believe I can plainly see the colouring
and marks of the grandfather of the Ass, Horse, Quagga, Hemionus and
Zebra, some millions of generations ago! Should not I [have] sneer[ed]
at any one who made such a remark to me a few years ago; but my evidence
seems to me so good that I shall publish my vision at the end of my
little discussion on this genus.
I have of late inundated you with my notions, you best of friends and
philosophers.
Adios, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Farnham, June 25th [1857].
My dear Hooker,
This requires no answer, but I will ask you whenever we meet. Look at
enclosed seedling gorses, especially one with the top knocked off. The
leaves succeeding the cotyledons being almost clover-like in shape,
seems to me feebly analogous to embryonic resemblances in young animals,
as, for instance, the young lion being striped. I shall ask you whether
this is so...(See 'Power of Movement in Plants,' page 414.)
Dr. Lane (The physician at Moor Park.) and wife, and mother-in-law, Lady
Drysdale, are some of the nicest people I ever met.
I return home on the 30th. Good-bye, my dear Hooker.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
[Here follows a group of letters, of various dates, bearing on the
question of large genera varying.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. March 11th [1858].
I was led to all this work by a remark of Fries, that the species in
large genera were more closely related to each other than in small
genera; and if this were so, seeing that varieties and species are so
hardly distinguishable, I concluded that I should find more varieties
in the large genera than in the small...Some day I hope you will read
my short discussion on the whole subject. You have done me infinite
service, whatever opinion I come to, in drawing my attention to at least
the possibility or the probability of botanists recording more varieties
in the large than in the small genera. It will be hard work for me to be
candid in coming to my conclusion.
Ever yours, most truly, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--I shall be several weeks at my present job. The work has been
turning out badly for me this morning, and I am sick at heart; and, oh!
how I do hate species and varieties.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. July 14th [1857?].
...I write now to supplicate most earnestly a favour, viz., the loan of
"Boreau, Flore du centre de la France", either 1st or 2nd edition,
last best; also "Flora Ratisbonensis," by Dr. Furnrohr, in 'Naturhist.
Topographie von Regensburg, 1839.' If you can POSSIBLY spare them, will
you send them at once to the enclosed address. If you have not them,
will you send one line by return of post: as I must try whether
Kippist (The late Mr. Kippist was at this time in charge of the Linnean
Society's Library.) can anyhow find them, which I fear will be nearly
impossible in the Linnean Library, in which I know they are.
I have been making some calculations about varieties, etc., and talking
yesterday with Lubbock, he has pointed out to me the grossest blunder
which I have made in principle, and which entails two or three weeks'
lost work; and I am at a dead-lock till I have these books to go over
again, and see what the result of calculation on the right principle is.
I am the most miserable, bemuddled, stupid dog in all England, and am
ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption.
Ever yours, most miserably, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Down, [July] 14th [1857].
My dear Lubbock,
You have done me the greatest possible service in helping me to clarify
my brains. If I am as muzzy on all subjects as I am on proportion and
chance,--what a book I shall produce!
I have divided the New Zealand Flora as you suggested, there are 329
species in genera of 4 and upwards, and 323 in genera of 3 and less.
The 339 species have 51 species presenting one or more varieties. The
323 species have only 37. Proportionately (339: 323:: 51: 48.5) they
ought to have had 48 1/2 species presenting vars. So that the case goes
as I want it, but not strong enough, without it be general, for me to
have much confidence in. I am quite convinced yours is the right way; I
had thought of it, but should never have done it had it not been for my
most fortunate conversation with you.
Un quite shocked to find how easily I am muddled, for I had before
thought over the subject much, and concluded my way was fair. It is
dreadfully erroneous.
What a disgraceful blunder you have saved me from. I heartily thank you.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--It is enough to make me tear up all my MS. and give up in despair.
It will take me several weeks to go over all my materials. But oh, if
you knew how thankful I am to you!
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August [1857].
My dear Hooker,
It is a horrid bore you cannot come soon, and I reproach myself that
I did not write sooner. How busy you must be! with such a heap of
botanists at Kew. Only think, I have just had a letter from Henslow,
saying he will come here between 11th and 15th! Is not that grand? Many
thanks about Furnrohr. I must humbly supplicate Kippist to search for
it: he most kindly got Boreau for me.
I am got extremely interested in tabulating, according to mere size
of genera, the species having any varieties marked by Greek letters or
otherwise: the result (as far as I have yet gone) seems to me one of the
most important arguments I have yet met with, that varieties are only
small species--or species only strongly marked varieties. The subject
is in many ways so very important for me; I wish much you would think of
any well-worked Floras with from 1000-2000 species, with the varieties
marked. It is good to have hair-splitters and lumpers. (Those who
make many species are the "splitters," and those who make few are the
"lumpers.") I have done, or am doing:--
Babington.......................
Henslow.........................
British Flora. London Catalogue. H.C. Watson...
Boreau.......................... France.
Miquel.......................... Holland.
Asa Gray........................ N.U. States.
Hooker.......................... New Zealand.
Fragment of Indian Flora.
Wollaston....................... Madeira insects.
Has not Koch published a good German Flora? Does he mark varieties?
Could you send it me? Is there not some grand Russian Flora, which
perhaps has varieties marked? The Floras ought to be well known.
I am in no hurry for a few weeks. Will you turn this in your head when,
if ever, you have leisure? The subject is very important for my work,
though I clearly see MANY causes of error...
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, February 21st [1859].
My dear Gray,
My last letter begged no favour, this one does: but it will really cost
you very little trouble to answer to me, and it will be of very GREAT
service to me, owing to a remark made to me by Hooker, which I cannot
credit, and which was suggested to him by one of my letters. He
suggested my asking you, and I told him I would not give the least
hint what he thought. I generally believe Hooker implicitly, but he is
sometimes, I think, and he confesses it, rather over critical, and
his ingenuity in discovering flaws seems to me admirable. Here is my
question:--"Do you think that good botanists in drawing up a local
Flora, whether small or large, or in making a Prodromus like De
Candolle's, would almost universally, but unintentionally and
unconsciously, tend to record (i.e., marking with Greek letters and
giving short characters) varieties in the large or in the small genera?
Or would the tendency be to record the varieties about equally in genera
of all sizes? Are you yourself conscious on reflection that you have
attended to, and recorded more carefully the varieties in large or
small, or very small genera?"
I know what fleeting and trifling things varieties very often are;
but my query applies to such as have been thought worth marking and
recording. If you could screw time to send me ever so brief an answer to
this, pretty soon, it would be a great service to me.
Yours most truly obliged, CH. DARWIN.
P.S.--Do you know whether any one has ever published any remarks on the
geographical range of varieties of plants in comparison with the species
to which they are supposed to belong? I have in vain tried to get some
vague idea, and with the exception of a little information on this head
given me by Mr. Watson in a paper on Land Shells in United States, I
have quite failed; but perhaps it would be difficult for you to give me
even a brief answer on this head, and if so I am not so unreasonable, I
ASSURE YOU, as to expect it.
If you are writing to England soon, you could enclose other letters
[for] me to forward.
Please observe the question is not whether there are more or fewer
varieties in larger or smaller genera, but whether there is a stronger
or weaker tendency in the minds of botanists to RECORD such in large or
small genera.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 6th [1858].
...I send by this post my MS. on the "commonness," "range," and
"variation" of species in large and small genera. You have undertaken
a horrid job in so very kindly offering to read it, and I thank you
warmly. I have just corrected the copy, and am disappointed in finding
how tough and obscure it is; I cannot make it clearer, and at present
I loathe the very sight of it. The style of course requires further
correction, and if published I must try, but as yet see not how, to make
it clearer.
If you have much to say and can have patience to consider the whole
subject, I would meet you in London on the Phil. Club day, so as to save
you the trouble of writing. For Heaven's sake, you stern and awful judge
and sceptic, remember that my conclusions may be true, notwithstanding
that Botanists may have recorded more varieties in large than in small
genera. It seems to me a mere balancing of probabilities. Again I thank
you most sincerely, but I fear you will find it a horrid job.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--As usual, Hydropathy has made a man of me for a short time: I hope
the sea will do Mrs. Hooker much good.
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, December 22nd, 1857.
My dear Sir,
I thank you for your letter of September 27th. I am extremely glad
to hear how you are attending to distribution in accordance with
theoretical ideas. I am a firm believer that without speculation there
is no good and original observation. Few travellers have attended to
such points as you are now at work on; and, indeed, the whole subject
of distribution of animals is dreadfully behind that of plants. You say
that you have been somewhat surprised at no notice having been taken
of your paper in the Annals. ('On the law that has regulated the
introduction of New Species.' Ann. Nat. Hist., 1855.) I cannot say that
I am, for so very few naturalists care for anything beyond the mere
description of species. But you must not suppose that your paper has not
been attended to: two very good men, Sir C. Lyell, and Mr. E. Blyth at
Calcutta, specially called my attention to it. Though agreeing with you
on your conclusions in that paper, I believe I go much further than you;
but it is too long a subject to enter on my speculative notions. I
have not yet seen your paper on the distribution of animals in the Aru
Islands. I shall read it with the utmost interest; for I think that the
most interesting quarter of the whole globe in respect to distribution,
and I have long been very imperfectly trying to collect data for the
Malay Archipelago. I shall be quite prepared to subscribe to your
doctrine of subsidence; indeed, from the quite independent evidence of
the Coral Reefs I coloured my original map (in my Coral volume) of
the Aru Islands as one of subsidence, but got frightened and left it
uncoloured. But I can see that you are inclined to go much further
than I am in regard to the former connection of oceanic islands with
continents. Ever since poor E. Forbes propounded this doctrine it has
been eagerly followed; and Hooker elaborately discusses the former
connection of all the Antarctic Islands and New Zealand and South
America. About a year ago I discussed this subject much with Lyell and
Hooker (for I shall have to treat of it), and wrote out my arguments in
opposition; but you will be glad to hear that neither Lyell nor Hooker
thought much of my arguments. Nevertheless, for once in my life, I dare
withstand the almost preternatural sagacity of Lyell.
You ask about land-shells on islands far distant from continents:
Madeira has a few identical with those of Europe, and here the evidence
is really good, as some of them are sub-fossil. In the Pacific Islands
there are cases of identity, which I cannot at present persuade myself
to account for by introduction through man's agency; although Dr.
Aug. Gould has conclusively shown that many land-shells have thus
been distributed over the Pacific by man's agency. These cases of
introduction are most plaguing. Have you not found it so in the Malay
Archipelago? It has seemed to me in the lists of mammals of Timor and
other islands, that SEVERAL in all probability have been naturalised...
You ask whether I shall discuss "man." I think I shall avoid the whole
subject, as so surrounded with prejudices; though I fully admit that it
is the highest and most interesting problem for the naturalist. My work,
on which I have now been at work more or less for twenty years, will
not fix or settle anything; but I hope it will aid by giving a large
collection of facts, with one definite end. I get on very slowly, partly
from ill-health, partly from being a very slow worker. I have got about
half written; but I do not suppose I shall publish under a couple of
years. I have now been three whole months on one chapter on Hybridism!
I am astonished to see that you expect to remain out three or four years
more. What a wonderful deal you will have seen, and what interesting
areas--the grand Malay Archipelago and the richest parts of South
America! I infinitely admire and honour your zeal and courage in the
good cause of Natural Science; and you have my very sincere and cordial
good wishes for success of all kinds, and may all your theories succeed,
except that on Oceanic Islands, on which subject I will do battle to the
death.
Pray believe me, my dear sir, yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. February 8th [1858].
...I am working very hard at my book, perhaps too hard. It will be very
big, and I am become most deeply interested in the way facts fall into
groups. I am like Croesus overwhelmed with my riches in facts, and I
mean to make my book as perfect as ever I can. I shall not go to press
at soonest for a couple of years...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. February 23rd [1858].
...I was not much struck with the great Buckle, and I admired the way
you stuck up about deduction and induction. I am reading his book ('The
History of Civilisation.'), which, with much sophistry, as it seems to
me, is WONDERFULLY clever and original, and with astounding knowledge.
I saw that you admired Mrs. Farrer's 'Questa tomba' of Beethoven
thoroughly; there is something grand in her sweet tones.
Farewell. I have partly written this note to drive bee's-cells out of
my head; for I am half-mad on the subject to try to make out some
simple steps from which all the wondrous angles may result. (He had
much correspondence on this subject with the late Professor Miller of
Cambridge.)
I was very glad to see Mrs. Hooker on Friday; how well she appears to be
and looks.
Forgive your intolerable but affectionate friend, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, April 16th [1858].
My dear Fox,
I want you to observe one point for me, on which I am extremely much
interested, and which will give you no trouble beyond keeping your eyes
open, and that is a habit I know full well that you have.
I find horses of various colours often have a spinal band or stripe of
different and darker tint than the rest of the body; rarely transverse
bars on the legs, generally on the under-side of the front legs, still
more rarely a very faint transverse shoulder-stripe like an ass.
Is there any breed of Delamere forest ponies? I have found out little
about ponies in these respects. Sir P. Egerton has, I believe, some
quite thoroughbred chestnut horses; have any of them the spinal stripe?
Mouse-coloured ponies, or rather small horses, often have spinal and leg
bars. So have dun horses (by dun I mean real colour of cream mixed with
brown, bay, or chestnut). So have sometimes chestnuts, but I have not
yet got a case of spinal stripe in chestnut, race horse, or in quite
heavy cart-horse. Any fact of this nature of such stripes in horses
would be MOST useful to me. There is a parallel case in the legs of
the donkey, and I have collected some most curious cases of stripes
appearing in various crossed equine animals. I have also a large mass of
parallel facts in the breeds of pigeons about the wing bars. I SUSPECT
it will throw light on the colour of the primeval horse. So do help me
if occasion turns up...My health has been lately very bad from
overwork, and on Tuesday I go for a fortnight's hydropathy. My work is
everlasting. Farewell.
My dear Fox, I trust you are well. Farewell, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Farnham [April 26th, 1858].
...I have just had the innermost cockles of my heart rejoiced by a
letter from Lyell. I said to him (or he to me) that I believed from
the character of the flora of the Azores, that icebergs must have been
stranded there; and that I expected erratic boulders would be detected
embedded between the upheaved lava-beds; and I got Lyell to write to
Hartung to ask, and now H. says my question explains what had astounded
him, viz., large boulders (and some polished) of mica-schist, quartz,
sandstone, etc., some embedded, and some 40 and 50 feet above the level
of the sea, so that he had inferred that they had not been brought as
ballast. Is this not beautiful?
The water-cure has done me some good, but I [am] nothing to boast of
to-day, so good-bye.
My dear friend, yours, C.D.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Moor Park, Farnham, April 26th [1858].
My dear Lyell,
I have come here for a fortnight's hydropathy, as my stomach had got,
from steady work, into a horrid state. I am extremely much obliged to
you for sending me Hartung's interesting letter. The erratic boulders
are splendid. It is a grand case of floating ice versus glaciers. He
ought to have compared the northern and southern shores of the islands.
It is eminently interesting to me, for I have written a very long
chapter on the subject, collecting briefly all the geological evidence
of glacial action in different parts of the world, and then at great
length (on the theory of species changing) I have discussed the
migration and modification of plants and animals, in sea and land, over
a large part of the world. To my mind, it throws a flood of light on
the whole subject of distribution, if combined with the modification of
species. Indeed, I venture to speak with some little confidence on this,
for Hooker, about a year ago, kindly read over my chapter, and though he
then demurred gravely to the general conclusion, I was delighted to hear
a week or two ago that he was inclined to come round pretty strongly to
my views of distribution and change during the glacial period. I had a
letter from Thompson, of Calcutta, the other day, which helps me much,
as he is making out for me what heat our temperate plants can endure.
But it is too long a subject for a note; and I have written thus only
because Hartung's note has set the whole subject afloat in my mind
again. But I will write no more, for my object here is to think
about nothing, bathe much, walk much, eat much, and read much novels.
Farewell, with many thanks, and very kind remembrance to Lady Lyell.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. DARWIN. Moor Park, Wednesday, April [1858].
The weather is quite delicious. Yesterday, after writing to you, I
strolled a little beyond the glade for an hour and a half, and enjoyed
myself--the fresh yet dark-green of the grand Scotch firs, the brown of
the catkins of the old birches, with their white stems, and a fringe of
distant green from the larches made an excessively pretty view. At
last I fell fast asleep on the grass, and awoke with a chorus of
birds singing around me, and squirrels running up the trees, and some
woodpeckers laughing, and it was as pleasant and rural a scene as ever
I saw, and I did not care one penny how any of the beasts or birds had
been formed. I sat in the drawing-room till after eight, and then went
and read the Chief Justice's summing up, and thought Bernard (Simon
Bernard was tried in April 1858 as an accessory to Orsini's attempt on
the life of the Emperor of the French. The verdict was "not guilty.")
guilty, and then read a bit of my novel, which is feminine, virtuous,
clerical, philanthropical, and all that sort of thing, but very
decidedly flat. I say feminine, for the author is ignorant about money
matters, and not much of a lady--for she makes her men say, "My Lady."
I like Miss Craik very much, though we have some battles, and differ on
every subject. I like also the Hungarian; a thorough gentleman, formerly
attache at Paris, and then in the Austrian cavalry, and now a pardoned
exile, with broken health. He does not seem to like Kossuth, but says,
he is certain [he is] a sincere patriot, most clever and eloquent, but
weak, with no determination of character...
CHAPTER 1. XIII. -- THE WRITING OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'
JUNE 18, 1858, TO NOVEMBER, 1859.
[The letters given in the present chapter tell their story with
sufficient clearness, and need but a few words of explanation. Mr.
Wallace's Essay, referred to in the first letter, bore the sub-title,
'On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original
Type,' was published in the Linnean Society's Journal (1858, volume
iii. page 53) as part of the joint paper of "Messrs. C. Darwin and A.
Wallace," of which the full title was 'On the Tendency of Species to
form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by
Natural Means of Selection.'
My father's contribution to the paper consisted of (1) Extracts from
the sketch of 1844; (2) part of a letter addressed to Dr Asa Gray,
dated September 5, 1857, and which is given above. The paper was
"communicated" to the Society by Sir Charles Lyell and Sir Joseph
Hooker, in whose prefatory letter, a clear account of the circumstances
of the case is given.
Referring to Mr. Wallace's Essay, they wrote:
"So highly did Mr. Darwin appreciate the value of the views therein set
forth, that he proposed, in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, to obtain
Mr. Wallace's consent to allow the Essay to be published as soon as
possible. Of this step we highly approved, provided Mr. Darwin did not
withhold from the public, as he was strongly inclined to do (in favour
of Mr. Wallace), the memoir which he had himself written on the same
subject, and which, as before stated, one of us had perused in 1844, and
the contents of which we had both of us been privy to for many years. On
representing this to Mr. Darwin, he gave us permission to make what
use we thought proper of his memoir, etc.; and in adopting our present
course, of presenting it to the Linnean Society, we have explained to
him that we are not solely considering the relative claims to priority
of himself and his friend, but the interests of science generally."]
LETTERS.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, 18th [June 1858].
My dear Lyell,
Some year or so ago you recommended me to read a paper by Wallace in the
'Annals' ('Annals and Magazine of Natural History', 1855.), which had
interested you, and, as I was writing to him, I knew this would please
him much, so I told him. He has to-day sent me the enclosed, and asked
me to forward it to you. It seems to me well worth reading. Your words
have come true with a vengeance--that I should be forestalled. You said
this, when I explained to you here very briefly my views of 'Natural
Selection' depending on the struggle for existence. I never saw a more
striking coincidence; if Wallace had my MS. sketch written out in 1842,
he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand
as heads of my chapters. Please return me the MS., which he does not say
he wishes me to publish, but I shall of course, at once write and offer
to send to any journal. So all my originality, whatever it may amount
to, will be smashed, though my book, if it will ever have any value,
will not be deteriorated; as all the labour consists in the application
of the theory.
I hope you will approve of Wallace's sketch, that I may tell him what
you say.
My dear Lyell, yours most truly, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, Friday [June 25, 1858].
My dear Lyell,
I am very sorry to trouble you, busy as you are, in so merely a personal
an affair; but if you will give me your deliberate opinion, you will do
me as great a service as ever man did, for I have entire confidence in
your judgment and honour...
There is nothing in Wallace's sketch which is not written out much
fuller in my sketch, copied out in 1844, and read by Hooker some dozen
years ago. About a year ago I sent a short sketch, of which I have a
copy, of my views (owing to correspondence on several points) to Asa
Gray, so that I could most truly say and prove that I take nothing
from Wallace. I should be extremely glad now to publish a sketch of my
general views in about a dozen pages or so; but I cannot persuade myself
that I can do so honourably. Wallace says nothing about publication, and
I enclose his letter. But as I had not intended to publish any sketch,
can I do so honourably, because Wallace has sent me an outline of his
doctrine? I would far rather burn my whole book, than that he or any
other man should think that I had behaved in a paltry spirit. Do you
not think his having sent me this sketch ties my hands?... If I could
honourably publish, I would state that I was induced now to publish a
sketch (and I should be very glad to be permitted to say, to follow
your advice long ago given) from Wallace having sent me an outline of
my general conclusions. We differ only, [in] that I was led to my views
from what artificial selection has done for domestic animals. I would
send Wallace a copy of my letter to Asa Gray, to show him that I had not
stolen his doctrine. But I cannot tell whether to publish now would
not be base and paltry. This was my first impression, and I should have
certainly acted on it had it not been for your letter.
This is a trumpery affair to trouble you with, but you cannot tell how
much obliged I should be for your advice.
By the way, would you object to send this and your answer to Hooker to
be forwarded to me, for then I shall have the opinion of my two best and
kindest friends. This letter is miserably written, and I write it now,
that I may for a time banish the whole subject; and I am worn out with
musing...
My good dear friend forgive me. This is a trumpery letter, influenced by
trumpery feelings.
Yours most truly, C. DARWIN.
I will never trouble you or Hooker on the subject again.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Down, 26th [June, 1858].
My dear Lyell,
Forgive me for adding a P.S. to make the case as strong as possible
against myself.
Wallace might say, "You did not intend publishing an abstract of your
views till you received my communication. Is it fair to take advantage
of my having freely, though unasked, communicated to you my ideas, and
thus prevent me forestalling you?" The advantage which I should take
being that I am induced to publish from privately knowing that Wallace
is in the field. It seems hard on me that I should be thus compelled to
lose my priority of many years' standing, but I cannot feel at all
sure that this alters the justice of the case. First impressions are
generally right, and I at first thought it would be dishonourable in me
now to publish.
Yours most truly, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--I have always thought you would make a first-rate Lord Chancellor;
and I now appeal to you as a Lord Chancellor.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Tuesday [June 29, 1858].
...I have received your letters. I cannot think now (So soon after the
death, from scarlet fever, of his infant child.) on the subject, but
soon will. But I can see that you have acted with more kindness, and so
has Lyell, even than I could have expected from you both, most kind as
you are.
I can easily get my letter to Asa Gray copied, but it is too short.
...God bless you. You shall hear soon, as soon as I can think.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Tuesday night [June 29, 1858].
My dear Hooker,
I have just read your letter, and see you want the papers at once. I
am quite prostrated, and can do nothing, but I send Wallace, and the
abstract ("Abstract" is here used in the sense of "extract;" in this
sense also it occurs in the 'Linnean Journal,' where the sources of my
father's paper are described.) of my letter to Asa Gray, which gives
most imperfectly only the means of change, and does not touch on reasons
for believing that species do change. I dare say all is too late. I
hardly care about it. But you are too generous to sacrifice so much time
and kindness. It is most generous, most kind. I send my sketch of 1844
solely that you may see by your own handwriting that you did read it.
I really cannot bear to look at it. Do not waste much time. It is
miserable in me to care at all about priority.
The table of contents will show what it is.
I would make a similar, but shorter and more accurate sketch for the
'Linnean Journal.'
I will do anything. God bless you, my dear kind friend.
I can write no more. I send this by my servant to Kew.
Yours, C. DARWIN.
[The following letter is that already referred to as forming part of the
joint paper published in the Linnean Society's 'Journal,' 1858]:--
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, September 5th [1857]. (The date is
given as October in the 'Linnean Journal.' The extracts were printed
from a duplicate undated copy in my father's possession, on which he had
written, "This was sent to Asa Gray 8 or 9 months ago, I think October
1857.")
My dear Gray,
I forget the exact words which I used in my former letter, but I dare
say I said that I thought you would utterly despise me when I told you
what views I had arrived at, which I did because I thought I was bound
as an honest man to do so. I should have been a strange mortal, seeing
how much I owe to your quite extraordinary kindness, if in saying this
I had meant to attribute the least bad feeling to you. Permit me to tell
you that, before I had ever corresponded with you, Hooker had shown me
several of your letters (not of a private nature), and these gave me the
warmest feeling of respect to you; and I should indeed be ungrateful
if your letters to me, and all I have heard of you, had not strongly
enhanced this feeling. But I did not feel in the least sure that when
you knew whither I was tending, that you might not think me so wild and
foolish in my views (God knows, arrived at slowly enough, and I hope
conscientiously), that you would think me worth no more notice or
assistance. To give one example: the last time I saw my dear old friend
Falconer, he attacked me most vigorously, but quite kindly, and told me,
"You will do more harm than any ten Naturalists will do good. I can see
that you have already CORRUPTED and half-spoiled Hooker!!" Now when I
see such strong feeling in my oldest friends, you need not wonder that I
always expect my views to be received with contempt. But enough and too
much of this.
I thank you most truly for the kind spirit of your last letter. I agree
to every word in it, and think I go as far as almost any one in seeing
the grave difficulties against my doctrine. With respect to the extent
to which I go, all the arguments in favour of my notions fall RAPIDLY
away, the greater the scope of forms considered. But in animals,
embryology leads me to an enormous and frightful range. The facts which
kept me longest scientifically orthodox are those of adaptation--the
pollen-masses in asclepias--the mistletoe, with its pollen carried by
insects, and seed by birds--the woodpecker, with its feet and tail, beak
and tongue, to climb the tree and secure insects. To talk of climate or
Lamarckian habit producing such adaptations to other organic beings
is futile. This difficulty I believe I have surmounted. As you seem
interested in the subject, and as it is an IMMENSE advantage to me
to write to you and to hear, ever so briefly, what you think, I will
enclose (copied, so as to save you trouble in reading) the briefest
abstract of my notions on the means by which Nature makes her species.
Why I think that species have really changed, depends on general facts
in the affinities, embryology, rudimentary organs, geological history,
and geographical distribution of organic beings. In regard to my
Abstract, you must take immensely on trust, each paragraph occupying one
or two chapters in my book. You will, perhaps, think it paltry in me,
when I ask you not to mention my doctrine; the reason is, if any one,
like the author of the 'Vestiges,' were to hear of them, he might
easily work them in, and then I should have to quote from a work perhaps
despised by naturalists, and this would greatly injure any chance of
my views being received by those alone whose opinions I value. [Here
follows a discussion on "large genera varying," which has no direct
connection with the remainder of the letter.]
I. It is wonderful what the principle of Selection by Man, that is the
picking out of individuals with any desired quality, and breeding from
them, and again picking out, can do. Even breeders have been astonished
at their own results. They can act on differences inappreciable to an
uneducated eye. Selection has been METHODICALLY followed in Europe for
only the last half century. But it has occasionally, and even in some
degree methodically, been followed in the most ancient times. There must
have been also a kind of unconscious selection from the most ancient
times, namely, in the preservation of the individual animals (without
any thought of their offspring) most useful to each race of man in
his particular circumstances. The "roguing," as nursery-men call the
destroying of varieties, which depart from their type, is a kind of
selection. I am convinced that intentional and occasional selection has
been the main agent in making our domestic races. But, however this may
be, its great power of modification has been indisputedly shown in late
times. Selection acts only by the accumulation of very slight or greater
variations, caused by external conditions, or by the mere fact that in
generation the child is not absolutely similar to its parent. Man,
by this power of accumulating variations, adapts living beings to his
wants--he MAY BE SAID to make the wool of one sheep good for carpets,
and another for cloth, etc.
II. Now, suppose there was a being, who did not judge by mere external
appearance, but could study the whole internal organisation--who never
was capricious--who should go on selecting for one end during millions
of generations, who will say what he might not effect! In nature we have
some SLIGHT variations, occasionally in all parts: and I think it can be
shown that a change in the conditions of existence is the main cause
of the child not exactly resembling its parents; and in nature, geology
shows us what changes have taken place, and are taking place. We have
almost unlimited time: no one but a practical geologist can fully
appreciate this: think of the Glacial period, during the whole of which
the same species of shells at least have existed; there must have been
during this period, millions on millions of generations.
III. I think it can be shown that there is such an unerring power
at work, or NATURAL SELECTION (the title of my book), which selects
exclusively for the good of each organic being. The elder De Candolle,
W. Herbert, and Lyell, have written strongly on the struggle for life;
but even they have not written strongly enough. Reflect that every being
(even the elephant) breeds at such a rate that, in a few years, or at
most a few centuries or thousands of years, the surface of the earth
would not hold the progeny of any one species. I have found it hard
constantly to bear in mind that the increase of every single species is
checked during some part of its life, or during some shortly recurrent
generation. Only a few of those annually born can live to propagate
their kind. What a trifling difference must often determine which shall
survive and which perish.
IV. Now take the case of a country undergoing some change; this will
tend to cause some of its inhabitants to vary slightly; not but what I
believe most beings vary at all times enough for selection to act on.
Some of its inhabitants will be exterminated, and the remainder will be
exposed to the mutual action of a different set of inhabitants, which
I believe to be more important to the life of each being than mere
climate. Considering the infinitely various ways beings have to obtain
food by struggling with other beings, to escape danger at various times
of life, to have their eggs or seeds disseminated, etc., etc., I cannot
doubt that during millions of generations individuals of a species
will be born with some slight variation profitable to some part of its
economy; such will have a better chance of surviving, propagating this
variation, which again will be slowly increased by the accumulative
action of natural selection; and the variety thus formed will either
coexist with, or more commonly will exterminate its parent form. An
organic being like the woodpecker, or the mistletoe, may thus come to
be adapted to a score of contingencies; natural selection, accumulating
those slight variations in all parts of its structure which are in any
way useful to it, during any part of its life.
V. Multiform difficulties will occur to every one on this theory. Most
can, I think, be satisfactorily answered.--"Natura non facit saltum"
answer some of the most obvious. The slowness of the change, and only a
very few undergoing change at any one time answers others. The extreme
imperfections of our geological records answers others.
VI. One other principle, which may be called the principle of
divergence, plays, I believe, an important part in the origin of
species. The same spot will support more life if occupied by very
diverse forms: we see this in the many generic forms in a square yard of
turf (I have counted twenty species belonging to eighteen genera), or in
the plants and insects, on any little uniform islet, belonging to almost
as many genera and families as to species. We can understand this with
the higher animals, whose habits we best understand. We know that it
has been experimentally shown that a plot of land will yield a greater
weight, if cropped with several species of grasses, than with two or
three species. Now every single organic being, by propagating rapidly,
may be said to be striving its utmost to increase in numbers. So it will
be with the offspring of any species after it has broken into varieties,
or sub-species, or true species. And it follows, I think, from the
foregoing facts, that the varying offspring of each species will try
(only a few will succeed) to seize on as many and as diverse places
in the economy of nature as possible. Each new variety or species when
formed will generally take the place of, and so exterminate its
less well-fitted parent. This, I believe, to be the origin of the
classification or arrangement of all organic beings at all times. These
always SEEM to branch and sub-branch like a tree from a common trunk;
the flourishing twigs destroying the less vigorous--the dead and lost
branches rudely representing extinct genera and families.
This sketch is MOST imperfect; but in so short a space I cannot make
it better. Your imagination must fill up many wide blanks. Without some
reflection, it will appear all rubbish; perhaps it will appear so after
reflection.
C.D.
P.S.--This little abstract touches only the accumulative power of
natural selection, which I look at as by far the most important element
in the production of new forms. The laws governing the incipient or
primordial variation (unimportant except as the groundwork for selection
to act on, in which respect it is all important), I shall discuss under
several heads, but I can come, as you may well believe, only to very
partial and imperfect conclusions.
[The joint paper of Mr. Wallace and my father was read at the Linnean
Society on the evening of July 1st. Sir Charles Lyell and Sir J.D.
Hooker were present, and both, I believe, made a few remarks, chiefly
with a view of impressing on those present the necessity of giving the
most careful consideration to what they had heard. There was, however,
no semblance of a discussion. Sir Joseph Hooker writes to me: "The
interest excited was intense, but the subject was too novel and too
ominous for the old school to enter the lists, before armouring. After
the meeting it was talked over with bated breath: Lyell's approval, and
perhaps in a small way mine, as his lieutenant in the affair, rather
overawed the Fellows, who would otherwise have flown out against the
doctrine. We had, too, the vantage ground of being familiar with the
authors and their theme."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 5th [1858].
My dear Hooker,
We are become more happy and less panic-struck, now that we have sent
out of the house every child, and shall remove H.,as soon as she can
move. The first nurse became ill with ulcerated throat and quinsey,
and the second is now ill with the scarlet fever, but, thank God, is
recovering. You may imagine how frightened we have been. It has been a
most miserable fortnight. Thank you much for your note, telling me that
all had gone on prosperously at the Linnean Society. You must let me
once again tell you how deeply I feel your generous kindness and Lyell's
on this occasion. But in truth it shames me that you should have lost
time on a mere point of priority. I shall be curious to see the proofs.
I do not in the least understand whether my letter to A. Gray is to be
printed; I suppose not, only your note; but I am quite indifferent, and
place myself absolutely in your and Lyell's hands.
I can easily prepare an abstract of my whole work, but I can hardly see
how it can be made scientific for a Journal, without giving facts, which
would be impossible. Indeed, a mere abstract cannot be very short. Could
you give me any idea how many pages of the Journal could probably be
spared me?
Directly after my return home, I would begin and cut my cloth to my
measure. If the Referees were to reject it as not strictly scientific, I
could, perhaps publish it as a pamphlet.
With respect to my big interleaved abstract (The Sketch of 1844.), would
you send it any time before you leave England, to the enclosed address?
If you do not go till August 7th-10th, I should prefer it left with
you. I hope you have jotted criticisms on my MS. on big Genera, etc.,
sufficient to make you remember your remarks, as I should be infinitely
sorry to lose them. And I see no chance of our meeting if you go soon
abroad. We thank you heartily for your invitation to join you: I can
fancy nothing which I should enjoy more; but our children are too
delicate for us to leave; I should be mere living lumber.
Lastly, you said you would write to Wallace; I certainly should much
like this, as it would quite exonerate me: if you would send me your
note, sealed up, I would forward it with my own, as I know the address,
etc.
Will you answer me sometime about your notions of the length of my
abstract.
If you see Lyell, will you tell him how truly grateful I feel for his
kind interest in this affair of mine. You must know that I look at it,
as very important, for the reception of the view of species not being
immutable, the fact of the greatest Geologist and Botanist in England
taking ANY SORT OF INTEREST in the subject: I am sure it will do much to
break down prejudices.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Miss Wedgwood's, Hartfield, Tunbridge
Wells, [July 13th, 1858].
My dear Hooker,
Your letter to Wallace seems to me perfect, quite clear and most
courteous. I do not think it could possibly be improved, and I have
to day forwarded it with a letter of my own. I always thought it very
possible that I might be forestalled, but I fancied that I had a grand
enough soul not to care; but I found myself mistaken and punished; I
had, however, quite resigned myself, and had written half a letter to
Wallace to give up all priority to him, and should certainly not
have changed had it not been for Lyell's and your quite extraordinary
kindness. I assure you I feel it, and shall not forget it. I am MORE
than satisfied at what took place at the Linnean Society. I had thought
that your letter and mine to Asa Gray were to be only an appendix to
Wallace's paper.
We go from here in a few days to the sea-side, probably to the Isle of
Wight, and on my return (after a battle with pigeon skeletons) I will
set to work at the abstract, though how on earth I shall make anything
of an abstract in thirty pages of the Journal, I know not, but will try
my best. I shall order Bentham; is it not a pity that you should waste
time in tabulating varieties? for I can get the Down schoolmaster to do
it on my return, and can tell you all the results.
I must try and see you before your journey; but do not think I am
fishing to ask you to come to Down, for you will have no time for that.
You cannot imagine how pleased I am that the notion of Natural Selection
has acted as a purgative on your bowels of immutability. Whenever
naturalists can look at species changing as certain, what a magnificent
field will be open,--on all the laws of variation,--on the genealogy of
all living beings,--on their lines of migration, etc., etc. Pray thank
Mrs. Hooker for her very kind little note, and pray, say how truly
obliged I am, and in truth ashamed to think that she should have had
the trouble of copying my ugly MS. It was extraordinarily kind in her.
Farewell, my dear kind friend.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--I have had some fun here in watching a slave-making ant; for I
could not help rather doubting the wonderful stories, but I have now
seen a defeated marauding party, and I have seen a migration from one
nest to another of the slave-makers, carrying their slaves (who are
HOUSE, and not field niggers) in their mouths!
I am inclined to think that it is a true generalisation that, when honey
is secreted at one point of the circle of the corolla, if the pistil
bends, it always bends into the line of the gangway to the honey. The
Larkspur is a good instance, in contrast to Columbine,--if you think of
it, just attend to this little point.
CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. King's Head Hotel, Sandown, Isle of Wight,
July 18th [1858].
...We are established here for ten days, and then go on to Shanklin,
which seems more amusing to one, like myself, who cannot walk. We hope
much that the sea may do H. and L. good. And if it does, our expedition
will answer, but not otherwise.
I have never half thanked you for all the extraordinary trouble and
kindness you showed me about Wallace's affair. Hooker told me what was
done at the Linnean Society, and I am far more than satisfied, and I do
not think that Wallace can think my conduct unfair in allowing you and
Hooker to do whatever you thought fair. I certainly was a little annoyed
to lose all priority, but had resigned myself to my fate. I am going to
prepare a longer abstract; but it is really impossible to do justice
to the subject, except by giving the facts on which each conclusion is
grounded, and that will, of course, be absolutely impossible. Your name
and Hooker's name appearing as in any way the least interested in my
work will, I am certain, have the most important bearing in leading
people to consider the subject without prejudice. I look at this as so
very important, that I am almost glad of Wallace's paper for having led
to this.
My dear Lyell, yours most gratefully, CH. DARWIN.
[The following letter refers to the proof-sheets of the Linnean paper.
The 'introduction' means the prefatory letter signed by Sir C. Lyell and
Sir J.D. Hooker.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. King's Head Hotel, Sandown, Isle of
Wight, July 21st [1858].
My dear Hooker,
I received only yesterday the proof-sheets, which I now return. I think
your introduction cannot be improved.
I am disgusted with my bad writing. I could not improve it, without
rewriting all, which would not be fair or worth while, as I have begun
on a better abstract for the Linnean Society. My excuse is that it NEVER
was intended for publication. I have made only a few corrections in the
style; but I cannot make it decent, but I hope moderately intelligible.
I suppose some one will correct the revise. (Shall I?)
Could I have a clean proof to send to Wallace?
I have not yet fully considered your remarks on big genera (but your
general concurrence is of the HIGHEST POSSIBLE interest to me); nor
shall I be able till I re-read my MS.; but you may rely on it that
you never make a remark to me which is lost from INATTENTION. I am
particularly glad you do not object to my stating your objections in
a modified form, for they always struck me as very important, and as
having much inherent value, whether or no they were fatal to my notions.
I will consider and reconsider all your remarks...
I have ordered Bentham, for, as -- says, it will be very curious to see
a Flora written by a man who knows nothing of British plants!!
I am very glad at what you say about my Abstract, but you may rely on
it that I will condense to the utmost. I would aid in money if it is
too long. (That is to say, he would help to pay for the printing, if
it should prove too long for the Linnean Society.) In how many ways you
have aided me!
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
[The 'Abstract' mentioned in the last sentence of the preceding letter
was in fact the 'Origin of Species,' on which he now set to work. In his
'Autobiography' he speaks of beginning to write in September, but in
his Diary he wrote, "July 20 to August 12, at Sandown, began Abstract of
Species book." "September 16, Recommenced Abstract." The book was
begun with the idea that it would be published as a paper, or series of
papers, by the Linnean Society, and it was only in the late autumn that
it became clear that it must take the form of an independent volume.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight,
Friday [July] 30th [1858].
My dear Hooker,
Will you give the enclosed scrap to Sir William to thank him for his
kindness; and this gives me an excuse to amuse myself by writing to you
a note, which requires no answer.
This is a very charming place, and we have got a very comfortable house.
But, alas, I cannot say that the sea has done H. or L. much good. Nor
has my stomach recovered from all our troubles. I am very glad we left
home, for six children have now died of scarlet fever in Down. We return
on the 14th of August.
I have got Bentham ('British Flora.'), and am charmed with it, and
William (who has just started for a tour abroad) has been making out all
sorts of new (to me) plants capitally. The little scraps of information
are so capital...The English names in the analytical keys drive us mad:
give them by all means, but why on earth [not] make them subordinate to
the Latin; it puts me in a passion. W. charged into the Compositae and
Umbelliferae like a hero, and demolished ever so many in grand style.
I pass my time by doing daily a couple of hours of my Abstract, and I
find it amusing and improving work. I am now most heartily obliged to
you and Lyell for having set me on this; for I shall, when it is done,
be able to finish my work with greater ease and leisure. I confess I
hated the thought of the job; and now I find it very unsatisfactory in
not being able to give my reasons for each conclusion.
I will be longer than I expected; it will take thirty-five of my MS.
folio pages to give an abstract on variation under domestication alone;
but I will try to put in nothing which does not seem to me of some
interest, and which was once new to me. It seems a queer plan to give an
abstract of an unpublished work; nevertheless, I repeat, I am extremely
glad I have begun in earnest on it.
I hope you and Mrs. Hooker will have a very very pleasant tour.
Farewell, my dear Hooker.
Yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight,
Thursday [August 5, 1858].
My dear Hooker,
I should think the note apologetical about the style of the abstract was
best as a note...But I write now to ask you to send me by return of post
the MS. on big genera, that I may make an abstract of a couple of pages
in length. I presume that you have quite done with it, otherwise I would
not for anything have it back. If you tie it with string, and mark it
MS. for printing, it will not cost, I should think, more than 4 pence.
I shall wish much to say that you have read this MS. and concur; but you
shall, before I read it to the Society, hear the sentence.
What you tell me after speaking with Busk about the length of the
Abstract is an IMMENSE relief to me; it will make the labour far less,
not having to shorten so much every single subject; but I will try not
to be too diffusive. I fear it will spoil all interest in my book (The
larger book begun in 1856.), whenever published. The Abstract will
do very well to divide into several parts: thus I have just finished
"Variation under Domestication," in forty-four MS. pages, and that would
do for one evening; but I should be extremely sorry if all could not be
published together.
What else you say about my Abstract pleases me highly, but frightens me,
for I fear I shall never be able to make it good enough. But how I do
run on about my own affairs to you!
I was astonished to see Sir W. Hooker's card here two or three days
ago: I was unfortunately out walking. Henslow, also, has written to me,
proposing to come to Down on the 9th, but alas, I do not return till the
13th, and my wife not till a week later; so that I am also most sorry to
think I shall not see you, for I should not like to leave home so soon.
I had thought of going to London and running down for an hour or two to
Kew...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Norfolk House, Shanklin, Isle of Wight,
[August] [1858].
My dear Hooker,
I write merely to say that the MS. came safely two or three days ago.
I am much obliged for the correction of style: I find it unutterably
difficult to write clearly. When we meet I must talk over a few points
on the subject.
You speak of going to the sea-side somewhere; we think this the nicest
seaside place which we have ever seen, and we like Shanklin better than
other spots on the south coast of the island, though many are charming
and prettier, so that I would suggest your thinking of this place. We
are on the actual coast; but tastes differ so much about places.
If you go to Broadstairs, when there is a strong wind from the coast of
France and in fine, dry, warm weather, look out, and you will PROBABLY
(!) see thistle-seeds blown across the Channel. The other day I saw one
blown right inland, and then in a few minutes a second one and then a
third; and I said to myself, God bless me, how many thistles there must
be in France; and I wrote a letter in imagination to you. But I then
looked at the LOW clouds, and noticed that they were not coming inland,
so I feared a screw was loose. I then walked beyond a headland, and
found the wind parallel to the coast, and on this very headland a noble
bed of thistles, which by every wide eddy were blown far out to sea, and
then came right in at right angles to the shore! One day such a number
of insects were washed up by the tide, and I brought to life thirteen
species of Coleoptera; not that I suppose these came from France. But do
you watch for thistle-seed as you saunter along the coast...
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. August 11th [1858].
My dear Gray,
Your note of July 27th has just reached me in the Isle of Wight. It is a
real and great pleasure to me to write to you about my notions; and
even if it were not so, I should be a most ungrateful dog, after all
the invaluable assistance you have rendered me, if I did not do anything
which you asked.
I have discussed in my long MS. the later changes of climate and the
effect on migration, and I will here give you an ABSTRACT of an ABSTRACT
(which latter I am preparing of my whole work for the Linnean Society).
I cannot give you facts, and I must write dogmatically, though I do not
feel so on any point. I may just mention, in order that you may believe
that I have SOME foundation for my views, that Hooker has read my MS.,
and though he at first demurred to my main point, he has since told me
that further reflection and new facts have made him a convert.
In the older, or perhaps newer, Pliocene age (a little BEFORE the
Glacial epoch) the temperature was higher; of this there can be little
doubt; the land, on a LARGE SCALE, held much its present disposition:
the species were mainly, judging from shells, what they are now. At this
period when all animals and plants ranged 10 or 15 degrees nearer the
poles, I believe the northern part of Siberia and of North America being
almost CONTINUOUS, were peopled (it is quite possible, considering
the shallow water, that Behring Straits were united, perhaps a little
southward) by a nearly uniform fauna and flora, just as the Arctic
regions now are. The climate then became gradually colder till it became
what it now is; and then the temperate parts of Europe and America would
be separated, as far as migration is concerned, just as they now are.
Then came on the Glacial period, driving far south all living things;
middle or even southern Europe being peopled with Arctic productions;
as the warmth returned, the Arctic productions slowly crawled up the
mountains as they became denuded of snow; and we now see on their
summits the remnants of a once continuous flora and fauna. This is E.
Forbes' theory, which, however, I may add, I had written out four years
before he published.
Some facts have made me vaguely SUSPECT that between the glacial and
the present temperature there was a period of SLIGHTLY greater warmth.
According to my modification-doctrines, I look at many of the species of
North America which CLOSELY represent those of Europe, as having become
modified since the Pliocene period, when in the northern part of the
world there was nearly free communication between the old and new
worlds. But now comes a more important consideration; there is a
considerable body of geological evidence that during the Glacial epoch
the whole world was colder; I inferred that, many years ago, from
erratic boulder phenomena carefully observed by me on both the east and
west coast of South America. Now I am so bold as to believe that at the
height of the Glacial epoch, AND WHEN ALL TROPICAL PRODUCTIONS MUST
HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLY DISTRESSED, that several temperate forms slowly
travelled into the heart of the Tropics, and even reached the southern
hemisphere; and some few southern forms penetrated in a reverse
direction northward. (Heights of Borneo with Australian forms, Abyssinia
with Cape forms.) Wherever there was nearly continuous HIGH land, this
migration would have been immensely facilitated; hence the European
character of the plants of Tierra del Fuego and summits of Cordilleras;
hence ditto on Himalaya. As the temperature rose, all the temperate
intruders would crawl up the mountains. Hence the European forms on
Nilgherries, Ceylon, summit of Java, Organ Mountains of Brazil. But
these intruders being surrounded with new forms would be very liable to
be improved or modified by natural selection, to adapt them to the new
forms with which they had to compete; hence most of the forms on the
mountains of the Tropics are not identical, but REPRESENTATIVE forms of
North temperate plants.
There are similar classes of facts in marine productions. All this will
appear very rash to you, and rash it may be; but I am sure not so rash
as it will at first appear to you: Hooker could not stomach it at all at
first, but has become largely a convert. From mammalia and shallow sea,
I believe Japan to have been joined to main land of China within no
remote period; and then the migration north and south before, during,
and after the Glacial epoch would act on Japan, as on the corresponding
latitude of China and the United States.
I should beyond anything like to know whether you have any Alpine
collections from Japan, and what is their character. This letter is
miserably expressed, but perhaps it will suffice to show what I believe
have been the later main migrations and changes of temperature...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [Down] October 6th, 1858.
...If you have or can make leisure, I should very much like to hear news
of Mrs. Hooker, yourself, and the children. Where did you go, and what
did you do and are doing? There is a comprehensive text.
You cannot tell how I enjoyed your little visit here, it did me much
good. If Harvey is still with you, pray remember me very kindly to him.
...I am working most steadily at my Abstract, but it grows to an
inordinate length; yet fully to make my view clear (and never giving
briefly more than a fact or two, and slurring over difficulties), I
cannot make it shorter. It will yet take me three or four months; so
slow do I work, though never idle. You cannot imagine what a service you
have done me in making me make this Abstract; for though I thought I had
got all clear, it has clarified my brains very much, by making me weigh
the relative importance of the several elements.
I have been reading with much interest your (as I believe it to be)
capital memoir of R. Brown in the "Gardeners' Chronicle"...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 12th, [1858].
...I have sent eight copies (Of the joint paper by C. Darwin and A.R.
Wallace.) by post to Wallace, and will keep the others for him, for I
could not think of any one to send any to.
I pray you not to pronounce too strongly against Natural Selection, till
you have read my abstract, for though I dare say you will strike out
MANY difficulties, which have never occurred to me; yet you cannot have
thought so fully on the subject as I have.
I expect my Abstract will run into a small volume, which will have to be
published separately...
What a splendid lot of work you have in hand.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 13th [1858].
...I have been a little vexed at myself at having asked you not "to
pronounce too strongly against Natural Selection." I am sorry to have
bothered you, though I have been much interested by your note in answer.
I wrote the sentence without reflection. But the truth is, that I have
so accustomed myself, partly from being quizzed by my non-naturalist
relations, to expect opposition and even contempt, that I forgot for
the moment that you are the one living soul from whom I have constantly
received sympathy. Believe [me] that I never forget for even a minute
how much assistance I have received from you. You are quite correct that
I never even suspected that my speculations were a "jam-pot" to you;
indeed, I thought, until quite lately, that my MS. had produced no
effect on you, and this has often staggered me. Nor did I know that you
had spoken in general terms about my work to our friends, excepting to
dear old Falconer, who some few years ago once told me that I should do
more mischief than any ten other naturalists would do good, [and] that I
had half spoiled you already! All this is stupid egotistical stuff,
and I write it only because you may think me ungrateful for not having
valued and understood your sympathy; which God knows is not the case. It
is an accursed evil to a man to become so absorbed in any subject as I
am in mine.
I was in London yesterday for a few hours with Falconer, and he gave
me a magnificent lecture on the age of man. We are not upstarts; we can
boast of a pedigree going far back in time coeval with extinct species.
He has a grand fact of some large molar tooth in the Trias.
I am quite knocked up, and am going next Monday to revive under
Water-cure at Moor Park.
My dear Hooker, yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. November 1858.
...I had vowed not to mention my everlasting Abstract to you again, for
I am sure I have bothered you far more than enough about it; but, as you
allude to its previous publication, I may say that I have the chapters
on Instinct and Hybridism to abstract, which may take a fortnight each;
and my materials for Palaeontology, Geographical Distribution, and
Affinities, being less worked up, I dare say each of these will take me
three weeks, so that I shall not have done at soonest till April, and
then my Abstract will in bulk make a small volume. I never give more
than one or two instances, and I pass over briefly all difficulties, and
yet I cannot make my Abstract shorter, to be satisfactory, than I am now
doing, and yet it will expand to a small volume...
[About this time my father revived his old knowledge of beetles in
helping his boys in their collecting. He sent a short notice to the
'Entomologist's Weekly Intelligencer,' June 25th, 1859, recording the
capture of Licinus silphoides, Clytus mysticus, Panagaeus 4-pustulatus.
The notice begins with the words, "We three very young collectors having
lately taken in the parish of Down," etc., and is signed by three of his
boys, but was clearly not written by them. I have a vivid recollection
of the pleasure of turning out my bottle of dead beetles for my father
to name, and the excitement, in which he fully shared, when any of them
proved to be uncommon ones. The following letters to Mr. Fox (November
13, 1858), and to Sir John Lubbock, illustrate this point:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, November 13th [1858].
...W., my son, is now at Christ's College, in the rooms above yours.
My old Gyp, Impey, was astounded to hear that he was my son, and very
simply asked, "Why, has he been long married?" What pleasant hours those
were when I used to come and drink coffee with you daily! I am reminded
of old days by my third boy having just begun collecting beetles, and
he caught the other day Brachinus crepitans, of immortal Whittlesea
Mere memory. My blood boiled with old ardour when he caught a Licinus--a
prize unknown to me...
CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK. Thursday [before 1857].
Dear Lubbock,
I do not know whether you care about beetles, but for the chance I
send this in a bottle, which I never remember having seen; though it
is excessively rash to speak from a twenty-five-year old remembrance.
Whenever we meet you can tell me whether you know it...
I feel like an old war-horse at the sound of the trumpet, when I read
about the capturing of rare beetles--is not this a magnanimous simile
for a decayed entomologist?--It really almost makes me long to begin
collecting again. Adios.
"Floreat Entomologia"!--to which toast at Cambridge I have drunk many a
glass of wine. So again, "Floreat Entomologia." N.B. I have NOT now been
drinking any glasses full of wine.
Yours, C.D.
CHARLES DARWIN TO HERBERT SPENCER. Down, November 25th [1858].
Dear Sir,
I beg permission to thank you sincerely for your very kind present
of your Essays. ('Essays, Scientific, Political, and Speculative,' by
Herbert Spencer, 1858-74.) I have already read several of them with
much interest. Your remarks on the general argument of the so-called
development theory seems to me admirable. I am at present preparing an
Abstract of a larger work on the changes of species; but I treat the
subject simply as a naturalist, and not from a general point of view,
otherwise, in my opinion, your argument could not have been improved on,
and might have been quoted by me with great advantage. Your article
on Music has also interested me much, for I had often thought on the
subject, and had come to nearly the same conclusion with you, though
unable to support the notion in any detail. Furthermore, by a curious
coincidence, expression has been for years a persistent subject with
me for LOOSE speculation, and I must entirely agree with you that
all expression has some biological meaning. I hope to profit by your
criticism on style, and with very best thanks, I beg leave to remain,
dear Sir,
Yours truly obliged, C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 24th [1858].
My dear Hooker,
Your news about your unsolicited salary and house is jolly, and
creditable to the Government. My room (28 x 19), with divided room
above, with ALL FIXTURES (and painted), not furniture, and plastered
outside, cost about 500 pounds. I am heartily glad of this news.