“There seems to me no great difficulty in believing that natural
selection has actually converted a swim-bladder into a lung or organ used
exclusively for respiration.” “A swim-bladder has apparently been
converted into an air-breathing lung.” “We must be cautious in
concluding that a bat could not have been formed by natural selection
from an animal which at first could only glide through the air.” “I can
see no insuperable difficulty in further believing it possible that the
membrane-connected fingers and forearm of the galeopithecus might be
greatly lengthened by natural selection, and this, as far as the organs
of flight are concerned, would convert it into a bat.” “The framework of
bones being the same in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of a
porpoise, and leg of a horse, the same number of vertebræ forming the
neck of the giraffe and of the elephant, and innumerable other such
facts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and
slight successive modifications.”
I do not mean to go through your correspondent’s letter, otherwise “I
could hardly reprehend in sufficiently strong terms” (and all that sort
of thing) the perversion of what I said about Giordano Bruno. But “ex
uno disce omnes”—I am, etc.,
“THE SAVOYARD.”
Darwin on Species
[From the _Press_, 18 March, 1863.]
To the Editor of the _Press_.
Sir—The “Savoyard” of last Saturday has shown that he has perused
Darwin’s _Botanic Garden_ with greater attention than myself. I am
obliged to him for his correction of my carelessness, and have not the
smallest desire to make use of any loopholes to avoid being “proved
wrong.” Let, then, the “Savoyard’s” assertion that Dr. Darwin had to a
certain extent forestalled Mr. C. Darwin stand, and let my implied denial
that in the older Darwin’s works passages bearing on natural selection,
or the struggle for existence, could be found, go for nought, or rather
let it be set down against me.
What follows? Has the “Savoyard” (supposing him to be the author of the
article on barrel-organs) adduced one particle of real argument the more
to show that the real Darwin’s theory is wrong?
The elder Darwin writes in a note that “he is acquainted with a
philosopher who thinks it not impossible that the first insects were the
anthers or stigmas of flowers, which by some means, etc. etc.” This is
mere speculation, not a definite theory, and though the passage above as
quoted by the “Savoyard” certainly does contain the germ of Darwin’s
theory, what is it more than the crudest and most unshapen germ? And in
what conceivable way does this discovery of the egg invalidate the
excellence of the chicken?
Was there ever a great theory yet which was not more or less developed
from previous speculations which were all to a certain extent wrong, and
all ridiculed, perhaps not undeservedly, at the time of their appearance?
There is a wide difference between a speculation and a theory. A
speculation involves the notion of a man climbing into a lofty position,
and descrying a somewhat remote object which he cannot fully make out. A
theory implies that the theorist has looked long and steadfastly till he
is clear in his own mind concerning the nature of the thing which he is
beholding. I submit that the “Savoyard” has unfairly made use of the
failure of certain speculations in order to show that a distinct theory
is untenable.
Let it be granted that Darwin’s theory has been foreshadowed by numerous
previous writers. Grant the “Savoyard” his Giordano Bruno, and give full
weight to the barrel-organ in a neighbouring settlement, I would still
ask, has the theory of natural development of species ever been placed in
anything approaching its present clear and connected form before the
appearance of Mr. Darwin’s book? Has it ever received the full attention
of the scientific world as a duly organised theory, one presented in a
tangible shape and demanding investigation, as the conclusion arrived at
by a man of known scientific attainments after years of patient toil?
The upshot of the barrel-organs article was to answer this question in
the affirmative and to pooh-pooh all further discussion.
It would be mere presumption on my part either to attack or defend
Darwin, but my indignation was roused at seeing him misrepresented and
treated disdainfully. I would wish, too, that the “Savoyard” would have
condescended to notice that little matter of the bear. I have searched
my copy of Darwin again and again to find anything relating to the
subject except what I have quoted in my previous letter.