CHAPTER 1.II.--EVOLUTION, 1844-1858.

(Chapter II./1. Since the publication of the "Life and Letters," Mr.

Huxley's obituary notice of Charles Darwin has appeared. (Chapter II./2.

"Proc. R. Soc." volume 44, 1888, and "Collected Essays (Darwiniana),"

page 253, 1899.) This masterly paper is, in our opinion, the finest

of the great series of Darwinian essays which we owe to Mr. Huxley.

We would venture to recommend it to our readers as the best possible

introduction to these pages. There is, however, one small point in which

we differ from Mr. Huxley. In discussing the growth of Mr. Darwin's

evolutionary views, Mr. Huxley quotes from the autobiography (Chapter

II./3. "Life and Letters," I., page 82. Some account of the origin of

his evolutionary views is given in a letter to Jenyns (Blomefield),

"Life and Letters," II. page 34.) a passage in which the writer

describes the deep impression made on his mind by certain groups of

facts observed in South America. Mr. Huxley goes on: "The facts to which

reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract

the attention of a philosophical thinker; but, until the relations

of the existing with the extinct species, and of the species of the

different geographical areas with one another, were determined with some

exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation.

It was not possible that this determination should have been effected

before the return of the "Beagle" to England; and thus the date

(Chapter II./4. The date in question is July 1837, when he "opened first

note-book on Transmutation of Species.') which Darwin (writing in 1837)

assigns to the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind,

becomes intelligible." This seems to us inconsistent with Darwin's

own statement that it was especially the character of the "species on

Galapagos Archipelago" which had impressed him. (Chapter II./5. See

"Life and Letters," I., page 276.) This must refer to the zoological

specimens: no doubt he was thinking of the birds, but these he had

himself collected in 1835 (Chapter II./6. He wrote in his "Journal,"

page 394, "My attention was first thoroughly aroused, by comparing

together the numerous specimens shot by myself and several other

parties on board," etc.), and no accurate determination of the forms was

necessary to impress on him the remarkable characteristic species of the

different islands. We agree with Mr. Huxley that 1837 is the date of

the "new light which was rising in his mind." That the dawn did not come

sooner seems to us to be accounted for by the need of time to produce so

great a revolution in his conceptions. We do not see that Mr. Huxley's

supposition as to the effect of the determination of species, etc., has

much weight. Mr. Huxley quotes a letter from Darwin to Zacharias, "But

I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two

or three years [after 1837] had elapsed" (see Letter 278). This

passage, which it must be remembered was written in 1877, is all but

irreconcilable with the direct evidence of the 1837 note-book. A series

of passages are quoted from it in the "Life and Letters," Volume II.,

pages 5 et seq., and these it is impossible to read without feeling that

he was convinced of immutability. He had not yet attained to a clear

idea of Natural Selection, and therefore his views may not have had,

even to himself, the irresistible convincing power they afterwards

gained; but that he was, in the ordinary sense of the word, convinced

of the truth of the doctrine of evolution we cannot doubt. He thought it

"almost useless" to try to prove the truth of evolution until the cause

of change was discovered. And it is natural that in later life he should

have felt that conviction was wanting till that cause was made out.

(Chapter II./7. See "Charles Darwin, his Life told, etc." 1892, page

165.) For the purposes of the present chapter the point is not very

material. We know that in 1842 he wrote the first sketch of his theory,

and that it was greatly amplified in 1844. So that, at the date of the

first letters of this chapter, we know that he had a working hypothesis

of evolution which did not differ in essentials from that given in the

"Origin of Species."

To realise the amount of work that was in progress during the period

covered by Chapter II., it should be remembered that during part of the

time--namely, from 1846 to 1854--he was largely occupied by his work on

the Cirripedes. (Chapter II./8. "Life and Letters," I. page 346.) This

research would have fully occupied a less methodical workman, and even

to those who saw him at work it seemed his whole occupation. Thus (to

quote a story of Lord Avebury's) one of Mr. Darwin's children is said

to have asked, in regard to a neighbour, "Then where does he do his

barnacles?" as though not merely his father, but all other men, must be

occupied on that group.

Sir Joseph Hooker, to whom the first letter in this chapter is

addressed, was good enough to supply a note on the origin of his

intimacy with Mr. Darwin, and this is published in the "Life and

Letters." (Chapter II./9. Ibid., II., page 19. See also "Nature," 1899,

June 22nd, page 187, where some reminiscences are published, which

formed part of Sir Joseph's speech at the unveiling of Darwin's statue

in the Oxford Museum.) The close intercourse that sprang up between them

was largely carried on by correspondence, and Mr. Darwin's letters to

Sir Joseph have supplied most valuable biographical material. But it

should not be forgotten that, quite apart from this, science owes much

to this memorable friendship, since without Hooker's aid Darwin's great

work would hardly have been carried out on the botanical side. And Sir

Joseph did far more than supply knowledge and guidance in technical

matters: Darwin owed to him a sympathetic and inspiriting comradeship

which cheered and refreshed him to the end of his life.

A sentence from a letter to Hooker written in 1845 shows, quite as

well as more serious utterances, how quickly the acquaintance grew into

friendship.

"Farewell! What a good thing is community of tastes! I feel as if I had

known you for fifty years. Adios." And in illustration of the permanence

of the sympathetic bond between them, we quote a letter of 1881 written

forty-two years after the first meeting with Sir Joseph in Trafalgar

Square (see "Life and Letters," II., page 19). Mr. Darwin wrote: "Your

letter has cheered me, and the world does not look a quarter so black

this morning as it did when I wrote before. Your friendly words are

worth their weight in gold.")

LETTER 13. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday [January 11th, 1844].

My dear Sir

I must write to thank you for your last letter, and to tell you how much

all your views and facts interest me. I must be allowed to put my own

interpretation on what you say of "not being a good arranger of extended

views"--which is, that you do not indulge in the loose speculations so

easily started by every smatterer and wandering collector. I look at a

strong tendency to generalise as an entire evil.

What you say of Mr. Brown is humiliating; I had suspected it, but would

not allow myself to believe in such heresy. Fitz-Roy gave him a rap

in his preface (13/1. In the preface to the "Surveying Voyages of the

'Adventure' and the 'Beagle,' 1826-30, forming Volume I of the work,

which includes the later voyage of the "Beagle," Captain Fitz-Roy wrote

(March, 1839): "Captain King took great pains in forming and preserving

a botanical collection, aided by a person embarked solely for that

purpose. He placed this collection in the British Museum, and was led to

expect that a first-rate botanist would have examined and described

it; but he has been disappointed." A reference to Robert Brown's

dilatoriness over King's collection occurs in the "Life and Letters,"

I., page 274, note.), and made him very indignant, but it seems a much

harder one would not have been wasted. My cryptogamic collection

was sent to Berkeley; it was not large. I do not believe he has yet

published an account, but he wrote to me some year ago that he had

described [the specimens] and mislaid all his descriptions. Would it not

be well for you to put yourself in communication with him, as otherwise

something will perhaps be twice laboured over? My best (though poor)

collection of the cryptogams was from the Chonos Islands.

Would you kindly observe one little fact for me, whether any species of

plant, peculiar to any island, as Galapagos, St. Helena, or New Zealand,

where there are no large quadrupeds, have hooked seeds--such hooks as,

if observed here, would be thought with justness to be adapted to catch

into wool of animals.

Would you further oblige me some time by informing me (though I forget

this will certainly appear in your "Antarctic Flora") whether in islands

like St. Helena, Galapagos, and New Zealand, the number of families

and genera are large compared with the number of species, as happens in

coral islands, and as, I believe, in the extreme Arctic land. Certainly

this is the case with marine shells in extreme Arctic seas. Do you

suppose the fewness of species in proportion to number of large groups

in coral islets is owing to the chance of seeds from all orders

getting drifted to such new spots, as I have supposed. Did you collect

sea-shells in Kerguelen-land? I should like to know their character.

Your interesting letters tempt me to be very unreasonable in asking you

questions; but you must not give yourself any trouble about them, for

I know how fully and worthily you are employed. (13/2. The rest of the

letter has been previously published in "Life and Letters," II., page

23.)

Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I have been now

ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know

no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck

with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc., and with the

character of the American fossil mammifers, etc., that I determined to

collect blindly every sort of fact which could bear any way on what are

species. I have read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and

have never ceased collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come,

and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with)

that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.

Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a "tendency to progression,"

"adaptations from the slow willing of animals," etc.! But the

conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his; though

the means of change are wholly so. I think I have found out (here's

presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted

to various ends. You will now groan, and think to yourself, "on what a

man have I been wasting my time and writing to." I should, five years

ago, have thought so...(13/3. On the questions here dealt with see the

interesting letter to Jenyns in the "Life and Letters," II., page 34.)

LETTER 14. TO J.D. HOOKER. [November] 1844.

...What a curious, wonderful case is that of the Lycopodium! (14/1. Sir

J.D. Hooker wrote, November 8, 1844: "I am firmly convinced (but not

enough to print it) that L. Selago varies in Van Diemen's Land into L.

varium. Two more different SPECIES (as they have hitherto been thought),

per se cannot be conceived, but nowhere else do they vary into one

another, nor does Selago vary at all in England.")...I suppose you would

hardly have expected them to be more varying than a phanerogamic plant.

I trust you will work the case out, and, even if unsupported, publish

it, for you can surely do this with due caution. I have heard of some

analogous facts, though on the smallest scale, in certain insects being

more variable in one district than in another, and I think the same

holds with some land-shells. By a strange chance I had noted to ask you

in this letter an analogous question, with respect to genera, in lieu

of individual species,--that is, whether you know of any case of a genus

with most of its species being variable (say Rubus) in one continent,

having another set of species in another continent non-variable, or not

in so marked a manner. Mr. Herbert (14/2. No doubt Dean Herbert, the

horticulturist. See "Life and Letters," I., page 343.) incidentally

mentioned in a letter to me that the heaths at the Cape of Good Hope

were very variable, whilst in Europe they are (?) not so; but then the

species here are few in comparison, so that the case, even if true, is

not a good one. In some genera of insects the variability appears to be

common in distant parts of the world. In shells, I hope hereafter to

get much light on this question through fossils. If you can help me, I

should be very much obliged: indeed, all your letters are most useful to

me.

MONDAY:--Now for your first long letter, and to me quite as interesting

as long. Several things are quite new to me in it--viz., for one, your

belief that there are more extra-tropical than intra-tropical species. I

see that my argument from the Arctic regions is false, and I should not

have tried to argue against you, had I not fancied that you thought that

equability of climate was the direct cause of the creation of a greater

or lesser number of species. I see you call our climate equable; I

should have thought it was the contrary. Anyhow, the term is vague, and

in England will depend upon whether a person compares it with the United

States or Tierra del Fuego. In my Journal (page 342) I see I state that

in South Chiloe, at a height of about 1,000 feet, the forests had a

Fuegian aspect: I distinctly recollect that at the sea-level in the

middle of Chiloe the forest had almost a tropical aspect. I should like

much to hear, if you make out, whether the N. or S. boundaries of a

plant are the most restricted; I should have expected that the S. would

be, in the temperate regions, from the number of antagonist species

being greater. N.B. Humboldt, when in London, told me of some river

(14/3. The Obi (see "Flora Antarctica," page 211, note). Hooker writes:

"Some of the most conspicuous trees attain either of its banks, but do

not cross them.") in N.E. Europe, on the opposite banks of which the

flora was, on the same soil and under same climate, widely different!

I forget (14/4. The last paragraph is published in "Life and Letters,"

II., page 29.) my last letter, but it must have been a very silly one,

as it seems I gave my notion of the number of species being in great

degree governed by the degree to which the area had been often isolated

and divided. I must have been cracked to have written it, for I have no

evidence, without a person be willing to admit all my views, and then it

does follow.

(14/5. The remainder of the foregoing letter is published in the "Life

and Letters," II., page 29. It is interesting as giving his views on

the mutability of species. Thus he wrote: "With respect to books on this

subject, I do not know any systematical ones, except Lamarck's, which is

veritable rubbish; but there are plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, etc., on

the view of the immutability." By "Pritchard" is no doubt intended James

Cowles "Prichard," author of the "Physical History of Mankind." Prof.

Poulton has given in his paper, "A remarkable Anticipation of Modern

Views on Evolution" (14/6. "Science Progress," Volume I., April 1897,

page 278.), an interesting study of Prichard's work. He shows that

Prichard was in advance of his day in his views on the non-transmission

of acquired characters. Prof. Poulton also tries to show that Prichard

was an evolutionist. He allows that Prichard wrote with hesitation, and

that in the later editions of his book his views became weaker.

But, even with these qualifications, we think that Poulton has

unintentionally exaggerated the degree to which Prichard believed in

evolution.

One of Prichard's strongest sentences is quoted by Poulton (loc. cit.,

page 16); it occurs in the "Physical History of Mankind," Ed. 2, Volume

II., page 570:--

"Is it not probable that the varieties which spring up within the

limits of particular species are further adaptations of structure to

the circumstances under which the tribe is destined to exist? Varieties

branch out from the common form of a species, just as the forms of

species deviate from the common type of a genus. Why should the

one class of phenomena be without end or utility, a mere effect of

contingency or chance, more than the other?"

If this passage, and others similar to it, stood alone, we might agree

with Prof. Poulton; but this is impossible when we find in Volume I.

of the same edition, page 90, the following uncompromising statement of

immutability:--

"The meaning attached to the term species, in natural history, is

very simple and obvious. It includes only one circumstance--namely, an

original distinctness and constant transmission of any character. A race

of animals, or plants, marked by any peculiarities of structure which

have always been constant and undeviating, constitutes a species."

On page 91, in speaking of the idea that the species which make up a

genus may have descended from a common form, he says:--

"There must, indeed, be some principle on which the phenomena of

resemblance, as well as those of diversity, may be explained; and the

reference of several forms to a common type seems calculated to suggest

the idea of some original affinity; but, as this is merely a conjecture,

it must be kept out of sight when our inquiries respect matters of fact

only."

This view is again given in Volume II., page 569, where he asks whether

we should believe that "at the first production of a genus, when it

first grew into existence, some slight modification in the productive

causes stamped it originally with all these specific diversities? Or is

it most probable that the modification was subsequent to its origin, and

that the genus at its first creation was one and uniform, and afterwards

became diversified by the influence of external agents?" He concludes

that "the former of these suppositions is the conclusion to which we are

led by all that can be ascertained respecting the limits of species,

and the extent of variation under the influence of causes at present

existing and operating."

In spite of the fact that Prichard did not carry his ideas to their

logical conclusion, it may perhaps excite surprise that Mr. Darwin

should have spoken of him as absolutely on the side of immutability.

We believe it to be partly accounted for (as Poulton suggests) by the

fact that Mr. Darwin possessed only the third edition (1836 and 1837)

and the fourth edition (1841-51). (14/7. The edition of 1841-51 consists

of reprints of the third edition and three additional volumes of various

dates. Volumes I. and II. are described in the title-page as the fourth

edition; Volumes III. and IV. as the third edition, and Volume V. has

no edition marked in the title.) In neither of these is the evolutionary

point of view so strong as in the second edition.

We have gone through all the passages marked by Mr. Darwin for future

reference in the third and fourth editions, and have been only able to

find the following, which occurs in the third edition (Volume I., 1836,

page 242) (14/8. There is also (ed. 1837, Volume II., page 344) a vague

reference to Natural Selection, of which the last sentence is enclosed

in pencil in inverted commas, as though Mr. Darwin had intended to

quote it: "In other parts of Africa the xanthous variety [of man] often

appears, but does not multiply. Individuals thus characterised are like

seeds which perish in an uncongenial soil.")

"The variety in form, prevalent among all organised productions of

nature, is found to subsist between individual beings of whatever

species, even when they are offspring of the same parents. Another

circumstance equally remarkable is the tendency which exists in almost

every tribe, whether of animals or of plants, to transmit to their

offspring and to perpetuate in their race all individual peculiarities

which may thus have taken their rise. These two general facts in the

economy of organised beings lay a foundation for the existence of

diversified races, originating from the same primitive stock and within

the limits of identical species."

On the following page (page 243) a passage (not marked by Mr. Darwin)

emphasises the limitation which Prichard ascribed to the results of

variation and inheritance:--

"Even those physiologists who contend for what is termed the indefinite

nature of species admit that they have limits at present and under

ordinary circumstances. Whatever diversities take place happen without

breaking in upon the characteristic type of the species. This is

transmitted from generation to generation: goats produce goats, and

sheep, sheep."

The passage on page 242 occurs in the reprint of the 1836-7 edition

which forms part of the 1841-51 edition, but is not there marked by Mr.

Darwin. He notes at the end of Volume I. of the 1836-7 edition: "March,

1857. I have not looked through all these [i.e. marked passages], but I

have gone through the later edition"; and a similar entry is in Volume

II. of the third edition. It is therefore easy to understand how he came

to overlook the passage on page 242 when he began the fuller statement

of his species theory which is referred to in the "Life and Letters" as

the "unfinished book." In the historical sketch prefixed to the "Origin

of Species" writers are named as precursors whose claims are less strong

than Prichard's, and it is certain that Mr. Darwin would have given an

account of him if he had thought of him as an evolutionist.

The two following passages will show that Mr. Darwin was, from his

knowledge of Prichard's books, justified in classing him among those who

did not believe in the mutability of species:

"The various tribes of organised beings were originally placed by

the Creator in certain regions, for which they are by their nature

peculiarly adapted. Each species had only one beginning in a single

stock: probably a single pair, as Linnaeus supposed, was first called

into being in some particular spot, and the progeny left to disperse

themselves to as great a distance from the original centre of their

existence as the locomotive powers bestowed on them, or their capability

of bearing changes of climate and other physical agencies, may have

enabled them to wander." (14/9. Prichard, third edition, 1836-7, Volume

I., page 96.)

The second passage is annotated by Mr. Darwin with a shower of

exclamation marks:

"The meaning attached to the term SPECIES in natural history is

very definite and intelligible. It includes only the following

conditions--namely, separate origin and distinctness of race, evinced

by the constant transmission of some characteristic peculiarity of

organisation. A race of animals or of plants marked by any peculiar

character which has always been constant and undeviating constitutes a

species; and two races are considered as specifically different, if

they are distinguished from each other by some characteristic which one

cannot be supposed to have acquired, or the other to have lost through

any known operation of physical causes; for we are hence led to conclude

that the tribes thus distinguished have not descended from the same

original stock." (14/10. Prichard, ed. 1836-7, Volume I., page 106. This

passage is almost identical with that quoted from the second edition,

Volume I., page 90. The latter part, from "and two races...," occurs in

the second edition, though not quoted above.)

As was his custom, Mr. Darwin pinned at the end of the first volume

of the 1841-51 edition a piece of paper containing a list of the pages

where marked passages occur. This paper bears, written in pencil, "How

like my book all this will be!" The words appear to refer to Prichard's

discussion on the dispersal of animals and plants; they certainly do not

refer to the evolutionary views to be found in the book.)

LETTER 15. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1844].

Thank you exceedingly for your long letter, and I am in truth ashamed

of the time and trouble you have taken for me; but I must some day write

again to you on the subject of your letter. I will only now observe that

you have extended my remark on the range of species of shells into the

range of genera or groups. Analogy from shells would only go so far,

that if two or three species...were found to range from America to

India, they would be found to extend through an unusual thickness

of strata--say from the Upper Cretaceous to its lowest bed, or the

Neocomian. Or you may reverse it and say those species which range

throughout the whole Cretaceous, will have wide ranges: viz., from

America through Europe to India (this is one actual case with shells in

the Cretaceous period).

LETTER 16. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1845].

I ought to have written sooner to say that I am very willing to

subscribe 1 pound 1 shilling to the African man (though it be murder on

a small scale), and will send you a Post-office-order payable to Kew, if

you will be so good as to take charge of it. Thanks for your information

about the Antarctic Zoology; I got my numbers when in Town on Thursday:

would it be asking your publisher to take too much trouble to send your

Botany ["Flora Antarctica," by J.D. Hooker, 1844] to the Athenaeum Club?

he might send two or three numbers together. I am really ashamed to

think of your having given me such a valuable work; all I can say is

that I appreciate your present in two ways--as your gift, and for its

great use to my species-work. I am very glad to hear that you mean to

attack this subject some day. I wonder whether we shall ever be public

combatants; anyhow, I congratulate myself in a most unfair advantage of

you, viz., in having extracted more facts and views from you than from

any one other person. I daresay your explanation of polymorphism on

volcanic islands may be the right one; the reason I am curious about it

is, the fact of the birds on the Galapagos being in several instances

very fine-run species--that is, in comparing them, not so much one with

another, as with their analogues from the continent. I have somehow

felt, like you, that an alpine form of a plant is not a true variety;

and yet I cannot admit that the simple fact of the cause being

assignable ought to prevent its being called a variety; every variation

must have some cause, so that the difference would rest on our knowledge

in being able or not to assign the cause. Do you consider that a true

variety should be produced by causes acting through the parent? But even

taking this definition, are you sure that alpine forms are not inherited

from one, two, or three generations? Now, would not this be a curious

and valuable experiment (16/1. For an account of work of this character,

see papers by G. Bonnier in the "Revue Generale," Volume II., 1890;

"Ann. Sc. Nat." Volume XX.; "Revue Generale," Volume VII.), viz., to get

seeds of some alpine plant, a little more hairy, etc., etc., than its

lowland fellow, and raise seedlings at Kew: if this has not been done,

could you not get it done? Have you anybody in Scotland from whom you

could get the seeds?

I have been interested by your remarks on Senecia and Gnaphalium: would

it not be worth while (I should be very curious to hear the result) to

make a short list of the generally considered variable or polymorphous

genera, as Rosa, Salix, Rubus, etc., etc., and reflect whether such

genera are generally mundane, and more especially whether they have

distinct or identical (or closely allied) species in their different and

distant habitats.

Don't forget me, if you ever stumble on cases of the same species being

MORE or LESS variable in different countries.

With respect to the word "sterile" as used for male or polleniferous

flowers, it has always offended my ears dreadfully; on the same

principle that it would to hear a potent stallion, ram or bull called

sterile, because they did not bear, as well as beget, young.

With respect to your geological-map suggestion, I wish with all my

heart I could follow it; but just reflect on the number of measurements

requisite; why, at present it could not be done even in England, even

with the assumption of the land having simply risen any exact number of

feet. But subsidence in most cases has hopelessly complexed the problem:

see what Jordanhill-Smith (16/2. James Smith, of Jordan Hill, author of

a paper "On the Geology of Gibraltar" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume

II., page 41, 1846).) says of the dance up and down, many times, which

Gibraltar has had all within the recent period. Such maps as Lyell

(16/3. "Principles of Geology," 1875, Volume I., Plate I, page 254.) has

published of sea and land at the beginning of the Tertiary period must

be excessively inaccurate: it assumes that every part on which Tertiary

beds have not been deposited, must have then been dry land,--a most

doubtful assumption.

I have been amused by Chambers v. Hooker on the K. Cabbage. I see in

the "Explanations" (the spirit of which, though not the facts, ought to

shame Sedgwick) that "Vestiges" considers all land-animals and plants to

have passed from marine forms; so Chambers is quite in accordance. Did

you hear Forbes, when here, giving the rather curious evidence (from a

similarity in error) that Chambers must be the author of the

"Vestiges": your case strikes me as some confirmation. I have written an

unreasonably long and dull letter, so farewell. (16/4. "Explanations: A

Sequel to the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" was published

in 1845, after the appearance of the fourth edition of the "Vestiges,"

by way of reply to the criticisms on the original book. The "K.

cabbage" referred to at the beginning of the paragraph is Pringlea

antiscorbutica," the "Kerguelen Cabbage" described by Sir J.D. Hooker in

his "Flora Antarctica." What Chambers wrote on this subject we have not

discovered. The mention of Sedgwick is a reference to his severe review

of the "Vestiges" in the "Edinburgh Review," 1845, volume 82, page 1.

Darwin described it as savouring "of the dogmatism of the pulpit" ("Life

and Letters," I., page 344). Mr. Ireland's edition of the "Vestiges"

(1844), in which Robert Chambers was first authentically announced as

the author, contains (page xxix) an extract from a letter written by

Chambers in 1860, in which the following passage occurs, "The April

number of the 'Edinburgh Review"' (1860) makes all but a direct amende

for the abuse it poured upon my work a number of years ago." This is the

well-known review by Owen, to which references occur in the "Life and

Letters," II., page 300. The amende to the "Vestiges" is not so full

as the author felt it to be; but it was clearly in place in a paper

intended to belittle the "Origin"; it also gave the reviewer (page 511)

an opportunity for a hit at Sedgwick and his 1845 review.)

LETTER 17. TO L. BLOMEFIELD [JENYNS]. Down. February 14th [1845].

I have taken my leisure in thanking you for your last letter and

discussion, to me very interesting, on the increase of species. Since

your letter, I have met with a very similar view in Richardson, who

states that the young are driven away by the old into unfavourable

districts, and there mostly perish. When one meets with such unexpected

statistical returns on the increase and decrease and proportion of

deaths and births amongst mankind, and in this well-known country of

ours, one ought not to be in the least surprised at one's ignorance,

when, where, and how the endless increase of our robins and sparrows is

checked.

Thanks for your hints about terms of "mutation," etc.; I had some

suspicions that it was not quite correct, and yet I do not see my way to

arrive at any better terms. It will be years before I publish, so that

I shall have plenty of time to think of better words. Development would

perhaps do, only it is applied to the changes of an individual during

its growth. I am, however, very glad of your remark, and will ponder

over it.

We are all well, wife and children three, and as flourishing as this

horrid, house-confining, tempestuous weather permits.

LETTER 18. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1845].

I hope you are getting on well with your lectures, and that you have

enjoyed some pleasant walks during the late delightful weather. I write

to tell you (as perhaps you might have had fears on the subject) that

your books have arrived safely. I am exceedingly obliged to you for

them, and will take great care of them; they will take me some time to

read carefully.

I send to-day the corrected MS. of the first number of my "Journal"

(18/1. In 1842 he had written to his sister: "Talking of money, I reaped

the other day all the profit which I shall ever get from my "Journal"

["Journal of Researches, etc."] which consisted in paying Mr. Colburn

21 pounds 10 shillings for the copies which I presented to different

people; 1,337 copies have been sold. This is a comfortable arrangement,

is it not?" He was proved wrong in his gloomy prophecy, as the second

edition was published by Mr. Murray in 1845.) in the Colonial Library,

so that if you chance to know of any gross mistake in the first 214

pages (if you have my "Journal"), I should be obliged to you to tell me.

Do not answer this for form's sake; for you must be very busy. We have

just had the Lyells here, and you ought to have a wife to stop your

working too much, as Mrs. Lyell peremptorily stops Lyell.

LETTER 19. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(19/1. Sir J.D. Hooker's letters to Mr. Darwin seem to fix the date as

1845, while the reference to Forbes' paper indicates 1846.)

Down [1845-1846].

I am particularly obliged for your facts about solitary islands having

several species of peculiar genera; it knocks on the head some analogies

of mine; the point stupidly never occurred to me to ask about. I am

amused at your anathemas against variation and co.; whatever you may be

pleased to say, you will never be content with simple species, "as they

are." I defy you to steel your mind to technicalities, like so many of

our brother naturalists. I am much pleased that I thought of sending

you Forbes' article. (19/2. E. Forbes' celebrated paper "Memoirs of

the Geological Survey of Great Britain," Volume I., page 336, 1846. In

Lyell's "Principles," 7th Edition, 1847, page 676, he makes a temperate

claim of priority, as he had already done in a private letter of October

14th, 1846, to Forbes ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," 1881, Volume II.,

page 106) both as regards the Sicilian flora and the barrier effect of

mountain-chains. See Letter 20 for a note on Forbes.) I confess I cannot

make out the evidence of his time-notions in distribution, and I cannot

help suspecting that they are rather vague. Lyell preceded Forbes in one

class of speculation of this kind: for instance, in his explaining the

identity of the Sicily Flora with that of South Italy, by its having

been wholly upraised within the recent period; and, so I believe, with

mountain-chains separating floras. I do not remember Humboldt's fact

about the heath regions. Very curious the case of the broom; I can tell

you something analogous on a small scale. My father, when he built his

house, sowed many broom-seeds on a wild bank, which did not come up,

owing, as it was thought, to much earth having been thrown over them.

About thirty-five years afterwards, in cutting a terrace, all this earth

was thrown up, and now the bank is one mass of broom. I see we were

in some degree talking to cross-purposes; when I said I did [not] much

believe in hybridising to any extent, I did not mean at all to exclude

crossing. It has long been a hobby of mine to see in how many flowers

such crossing is probable; it was, I believe, Knight's view, originally,

that every plant must be occasionally crossed. (19/3. See an article

on "The Knight-Darwin law" by Francis Darwin in "Nature," October 27th,

1898, page 630.) I find, however, plenty of difficulty in showing even

a vague probability of this; especially in the Leguminosae, though their

[structure?] is inimitably adapted to favour crossing, I have never

yet met with but one instance of a NATURAL MONGREL (nor mule?) in this

family.

I shall be particularly curious to hear some account of the appearance

and origin of the Ayrshire Irish Yew. And now for the main object of my

letter: it is to ask whether you would just run your eye over the

proof of my Galapagos chapter (19/4. In the second edition of the

"Naturalist's Voyage."), where I mention the plants, to see that I have

made no blunders, or spelt any of the scientific names wrongly. As

I daresay you will so far oblige me, will you let me know a few days

before, when you leave Edinburgh and how long you stay at Kinnordy, so

that my letter might catch you. I am not surprised at my collection from

James Island differing from others, as the damp upland district (where I

slept two nights) is six miles from the coast, and no naturalist except

myself probably ever ascended to it. Cuming had never even heard of it.

Cuming tells me that he was on Charles, James, and Albemarle Islands,

and that he cannot remember from my description the Scalesia, but thinks

he could if he saw a specimen. I have no idea of the origin of the

distribution of the Galapagos shells, about which you ask. I

presume (after Forbes' excellent remarks on the facilities by which

embryo-shells are transported) that the Pacific shells have been borne

thither by currents; but the currents all run the other way.

(PLATE: EDWARD FORBES 1844? From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.)

LETTER 20. EDWARD FORBES TO C. DARWIN.

(20/1. Edward Forbes was at work on his celebrated paper in the

"Geological Survey Memoirs" for 1846. We have not seen the letter of

Darwin's to which this is a reply, nor, indeed, any of his letters to

Forbes. The date of the letter is fixed by Forbes's lecture given at

the Royal Institution on February 27th, 1846 (according to L. Horner's

privately printed "Memoirs," II., page 94.))

Wednesday. 3, Southwark Street, Hyde Park. [1846].

Dear Darwin

To answer your very welcome letter, so far from being a waste of time,

is a gain, for it obliges me to make myself clear and understood

on matters which I have evidently put forward imperfectly and with

obscurity. I have devoted the whole of this week to working and writing

out the flora question, for I now feel strong enough to give my promised

evening lecture on it at the Royal Institution on Friday, and, moreover,

wish to get it in printable form for the Reports of our Survey.

Therefore at no time can I receive or answer objections with more

benefit than now. From the hurry and pressure which unfortunately attend

all my movements and doings I rarely have time to spare, in preparing

for publication, to do more than give brief and unsatisfactory

abstracts, which I fear are often extremely obscure.

Now for your objections--which have sprung out of my own obscurities.

I do not argue in a circle about the Irish case, but treat the botanical

evidence of connection and the geological as distinct. The former only I

urged at Cambridge; the latter I have not yet publicly maintained.

My Cambridge argument (20/2. "On the Distribution of Endemic Plants,"

by E. Forbes, "Brit. Assoc. Rep." 1845 (Cambridge), page 67.) was this:

That no known currents, whether of water or air, or ordinary means of

transport (20/3. Darwin's note on transportation (found with Forbes'

letter): "Forbes' arguments, from several Spanish plants in Ireland not

being transported, not sound, because sea-currents and air ditto and

migration of birds in SAME LINES. I have thought not-transportation

the greatest difficulty. Now we see how many seeds every plant and tree

requires to be regularly propagated in its own country, for we cannot

think the great number of seeds superfluous, and therefore how small is

the chance of here and there a solitary seedling being preserved in a

well-stocked country."), would account for the little group of Asturian

plants--few as to species, but playing a conspicuous part in the

vegetation--giving a peculiar botanical character to the south of

Ireland; that, as I had produced evidence of the other floras of our

islands, i.e. the Germanic, the Cretaceous, and the Devonian (these

terms used topographically, not geologically) having been acquired by

migration over continuous land (the glacial or alpine flora I except

for the present--as ice-carriage might have played a great part in its

introduction)--I considered it most probable, and maintained, that the

introduction of that Irish flora was also effected by the same means.

I held also that the character of this flora was more southern and more

ancient than that of any of the others, and that its fragmentary and

limited state was probably due to the plants composing it having (from

their comparative hardiness--heaths, saxifrages, etc.) survived the

destroying influence of the glacial epoch.

My geological argument now is as follows: half the Mediterranean

islands, or more, are partly--in some cases (as Malta) wholly--composed

of the upheaved bed of the Miocene sea; so is a great part of the south

of France from Bordeaux to Montpellier; so is the west of Portugal; and

we find the corresponding beds with the same fossils (Pecten latissimus,

etc.) in the Azores. So general an upheaval seems to me to indicate the

former existence of a great post-Miocene land [in] the region of what

is usually called the Mediterranean flora. (Everywhere these Miocene

islands, etc., bear a flora of true type.) If this land existed, it did

not extend to America, for the fossils of the Miocene of America

are representative and not identical. Where, then, was the edge or

coast-line of it, Atlantic-wards? Look at the form and constancy of the

great fucus-bank, and consider that it is a Sargassum bank, and that

the Sargassum there is in an abnormal condition, and that the species

of this genus of fuci are essentially ground-growers, and then see the

probability of this bank having originated on a line of ancient coast.

Now, having thus argued independently, first on my flora and second on

the geological evidences of land in the quarter required, I put the two

together to bear up my Irish case.

I cannot admit the Sargassum case to be parallel with that of Confervae

or Oscillatoria.

I think I have evidence from the fossils of the boulder formations in

Ireland that if such Miocene land existed it must have been broken up or

partially broken up at the epoch of the glacial or boulder period.

All objections thankfully received.

Ever most sincerely,

EDWARD FORBES.

LETTER 21. TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down. [1846].

I am much obliged for your note and kind intended present of your

volume. (21/1. No doubt the late Mr. Blomefield's "Observations in

Natural History." See "Life and Letters," II., page 31.) I feel sure I

shall like it, for all discussions and observations on what the world

would call trifling points in Natural History always appear to me very

interesting. In such foreign periodicals as I have seen, there are no

such papers as White, or Waterton, or some few other naturalists in

Loudon's and Charlesworth's Journal, would have written; and a great

loss it has always appeared to me. I should have much liked to have met

you in London, but I cannot leave home, as my wife is recovering from

a rather sharp fever attack, and I am myself slaving to finish my S.

American Geology (21/2. "Geological Observations in South America"

(London), 1846.), of which, thanks to all Plutonic powers, two-thirds

are through the press, and then I shall feel a comparatively free man.

Have you any thoughts of Southampton? (21/3. The British Association

met at Southampton in 1846.) I have some vague idea of going there, and

should much enjoy meeting you.

LETTER 22. TO J.D. HOOKER. Shrewsbury [end of February 1846].

I came here on account of my father's health, which has been sadly

failing of late, but to my great joy he has got surprisingly better...I

had not heard of your botanical appointment (22/1. Sir Joseph was

appointed Botanist to the Geological Survey in 1846.), and am very glad

of it, more especially as it will make you travel and give you change

of work and relaxation. Will you some time have to examine the Chalk and

its junction with London Clay and Greensand? If so our house would be

a good central place, and my horse would be at your disposal. Could you

not spin a long week out of this examination? it would in truth delight

us, and you could bring your papers (like Lyell) and work at odd times.

Forbes has been writing to me about his subsidence doctrines; I wish I

had heard his full details, but I have expressed to him in my ignorance

my objections, which rest merely on its too great hypothetical basis;

I shall be curious, when I meet him, to hear what he says. He is

also speculating on the gulf-weed. I confess I cannot appreciate his

reasoning about his Miocene continent, but I daresay it is from want of

knowledge.

You allude to the Sicily flora not being peculiar, and this being caused

by its recent elevation (well established) in the main part: you will

find Lyell has put forward this very clearly and well. The Apennines

(which I was somewhere lately reading about) seems a very curious case.

I think Forbes ought to allude a little to Lyell's (22/2. See Letter

19.) work on nearly the same subject as his speculations; not that I

mean that Forbes wishes to take the smallest credit from him or any man

alive; no man, as far as I see, likes so much to give credit to others,

or more soars above the petty craving for self-celebrity.

If you come to any more conclusions about polymorphism, I should be very

glad to hear the result: it is delightful to have many points fermenting

in one's brain, and your letters and conclusions always give one plenty

of this same fermentation. I wish I could even make any return for all

your facts, views, and suggestions.

LETTER 23. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(23/1. The following extract gives the germ of what developed into an

interesting discussion in the "Origin" (Edition I., page 147). Darwin

wrote, "I suspect also that some cases of compensation which have been

advanced and likewise some other facts, may be merged under a more

general principle: namely, that natural selection is continually trying

to economise in every part of the organism." He speaks of the general

belief of botanists in compensation, but does not quote any instances.)

[September 1846].

Have you ever thought of G. St. Hilaire's "loi de balancement" (23/2.

According to Darwin ("Variation of Animals and Plants," 2nd edition,

II., page 335) the law of balancement was propounded by Goethe and

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) nearly at the same time, but he gives

no reference to the works of these authors. It appears, however, from

his son Isidore's "Vie, Travaux etc., d'Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire,"

Paris 1847, page 214, that the law was given in his "Philosophie

Anatomique," of which the first part was published in 1818. Darwin

(ibid.) gives some instances of the law holding good in plants.), as

applied to plants? I am well aware that some zoologists quite reject it,

but it certainly appears to me that it often holds good with animals.

You are no doubt aware of the kind of facts I refer to, such as

great development of canines in the carnivora apparently causing

a diminution--a compensation or balancement--in the small size of

premolars, etc. I have incidentally noticed some analogous remarks on

plants, but have never seen it discussed by botanists. Can you think

of cases in any one species in genus, or genus in family, with certain

parts extra developed, and some adjoining parts reduced? In varieties

of the same species double flowers and large fruits seem something of

this--want of pollen and of seeds balancing with the increased number

of petals and development of fruit. I hope we shall see you here this

autumn.

(24/1. In this year (1847) Darwin wrote a short review of Waterhouse's

"Natural History of the Mammalia," of which the first volume had

appeared. It was published in "The Annals and Magazine of Natural

History," Volume XIX., page 53. The following sentence is the only one

which shows even a trace of evolution: "whether we view classification

as a mere contrivance to convey much information in a single word, or as

something more than a memoria technica, and as connected with the laws

of creation, we cannot doubt that where such important differences in

the generative and cerebral systems, as distinguish the Marsupiata from

the Placentata, run through two series of animals, they ought to be

arranged under heads of equal value."

A characteristic remark occurs in reference to Geographical

Distribution, "that noble subject of which we as yet but dimly see the

full bearing."

The following letter seems to be of sufficient interest to be published

in spite of the obscurities caused by the want of date. It seems to have

been written after 1847, in which year a dispute involving Dr. King and

several "arctic gentlemen" was carried on in the "Athenaeum." Mr. Darwin

speaks of "Natural History Instructions for the present expedition."

This may possibly refer to the "Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry"

(1849), for it is clear, from the prefatory memorandum of the Lords

of the Admiralty, that they believed the manual would be of use in the

forthcoming expeditions in search of Sir John Franklin.)

LETTER 24. TO E. CRESY.

(24/2. Mr. Cresy was, we believe, an architect: his friendship with Mr.

Darwin dates from the settlement at Down.)

Down [after 1847].

Although I have never particularly attended to the points in dispute

between Dr. (Richard) King and the other Arctic gentlemen, yet I have

carefully read all the articles in the "Athenaeum," and took from them

much the same impression as you convey in your letter, for which I thank

you. I believe that old sinner, Sir J. Barrow (24/3. Sir John Barrow,

(1764-1848): Secretary to the Admiralty. has been at the bottom of all

the money wasted over the naval expeditions. So strongly have I felt on

this subject, that, when I was appointed on a committee for Nat. Hist.

instructions for the present expedition, had I been able to attend I had

resolved to express my opinion on the little advantage, comparatively

to the expense, gained by them. There have been, I believe, from

the beginning eighteen expeditions; this strikes me as monstrous,

considering how little is known, for instance, on the interior of

Australia. The country has paid dear for Sir John's hobbyhorse. I have

very little doubt that Dr. King is quite right in the advantage of land

expeditions as far as geography is concerned; and that is now the chief

object. (24/4. This sentence would imply that Darwin thought it hopeless

to rescue Sir J. Franklin's expedition. If so, the letter must be, at

least, as late as 1850. If the eighteen expeditions mentioned above

are "search expeditions," it would also bring the date of the letter to

1850.)

LETTER 25. TO RICHARD OWEN. Down [March 26th, 1848].

My dear Owen

I do not know whether your MS. instructions are sent in; but even

if they are not sent in, I daresay what I am going to write will be

absolutely superfluous (25/1. The results of Mr. Darwin's experience

given in the above letter were embodied by Prof. Owen in the section "On

the Use of the Microscope on Board Ship," forming part of the article

"Zoology" in the "Manual of Scientific Enquiry, Prepared for the Use of

Her Majesty's Navy" (London, 1849).), but I have derived such infinitely

great advantage from my new simple microscope, in comparison with the

one which I used on board the "Beagle," and which was recommended to me

by R. Brown ("Life and Letters," I., page 145.), that I cannot forego

the mere chance of advantage of urging this on you. The leading point

of difference consists simply in having the stage for saucers very large

and fixed. Mine will hold a saucer three inches in inside diameter.

I have never seen such a microscope as mine, though Chevalier's (from

whose plan many points of mine are taken), of Paris, approaches it

pretty closely. I fully appreciate the utter ABSURDITY of my giving

you advice about means of dissecting; but I have appreciated myself the

enormous disadvantage of having worked with a bad instrument, though

thought a few years since the best. Please to observe that without you

call especial attention to this point, those ignorant of Natural History

will be sure to get one of the fiddling instruments sold in shops.

If you thought fit, I would point out the differences, which, from my

experience, make a useful microscope for the kind of dissection of

the invertebrates which a person would be likely to attempt on board a

vessel. But pray again believe that I feel the absurdity of this letter,

and I write merely from the chance of yourself, possessing great skill

and having worked with good instruments, [not being] possibly fully

aware what an astonishing difference the kind of microscope makes for

those who have not been trained in skill for dissection under water.

When next I come to town (I was prevented last time by illness) I must

call on you, and report, for my own satisfaction, a really (I think)

curious point I have made out in my beloved barnacles. You cannot tell

how much I enjoyed my talk with you here.

Ever, my dear Owen, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.

P.S.--If I do not hear, I shall understand that my letter is

superfluous. Smith and Beck were so pleased with the simple microscope

they made for me, that they have made another as a model. If you are

consulted by any young naturalists, do recommend them to look at this.

I really feel quite a personal gratitude to this form of microscope, and

quite a hatred to my old one.

LETTER 26. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down [April 1st, 1848.]

Thank you for your note and giving me a chance of seeing you in town;

but it was out of my power to take advantage of it, for I had previously

arranged to go up to London on Monday. I should have much enjoyed

seeing you. Thanks also for your address (26/1. An introductory lecture

delivered in March 1848 at the first meeting of a Society "for giving

instructions to the working classes in Ipswich in various branches of

science, and more especially in natural history" ("Memoir of the Rev.

J.S. Henslow," by Leonard Jenyns, page 150.), which I like very much.

The anecdote about Whewell and the tides I had utterly forgotten; I

believe it is near enough to the truth. I rather demur to one sentence

of yours--viz., "However delightful any scientific pursuit may be, yet,

if it should be wholly unapplied, it is of no more use than building

castles in the air." Would not your hearers infer from this that the

practical use of each scientific discovery ought to be immediate and

obvious to make it worthy of admiration? What a beautiful instance

chloroform is of a discovery made from purely scientific researches,

afterwards coming almost by chance into practical use! For myself I

would, however, take higher ground, for I believe there exists, and I

feel within me, an instinct for truth, or knowledge or discovery, of

something of the same nature as the instinct of virtue, and that our

having such an instinct is reason enough for scientific researches

without any practical results ever ensuing from them. You will wonder

what makes me run on so, but I have been working very hard for the last

eighteen months on the anatomy, etc., of the Cirripedia (on which I

shall publish a monograph), and some of my friends laugh at me, and I

fear the study of the Cirripedia will ever remain "wholly unapplied,"

and yet I feel that such study is better than castle-building.

LETTER 27. TO J.D. HOOKER, at Dr. Falconer's, Botanic Garden, Calcutta.

Down, May 10th, 1848.

I was indeed delighted to see your handwriting; but I felt almost sorry

when I beheld how long a letter you had written. I know that you are

indomitable in work, but remember how precious your time is, and do not

waste it on your friends, however much pleasure you may give them. Such

a letter would have cost me half-a-day's work. How capitally you seem

going on! I do envy you the sight of all the glorious vegetation. I am

much pleased and surprised that you have been able to observe so much in

the animal world. No doubt you keep a journal, and an excellent one it

will be, I am sure, when published. All these animal facts will tell

capitally in it. I can quite comprehend the difficulty you mention about

not knowing what is known zoologically in India; but facts observed, as

you will observe them, are none the worse for reiterating. Did you see

Mr. Blyth in Calcutta? He would be a capital man to tell you what is

known about Indian Zoology, at least in the Vertebrata. He is a very

clever, odd, wild fellow, who will never do what he could do, from not

sticking to any one subject. By the way, if you should see him at any

time, try not to forget to remember me very kindly to him; I liked all I

saw of him. Your letter was the very one to charm me, with all its facts

for my Species-book, and truly obliged I am for so kind a remembrance

of me. Do not forget to make enquiries about the origin, even if only

traditionally known, of any varieties of domestic quadrupeds, birds,

silkworms, etc. Are there domestic bees? if so hives ought to be brought

home. Of all the facts you mention, that of the wild [illegible], when

breeding with the domestic, producing offspring somewhat sterile, is the

most surprising: surely they must be different species. Most zoologists

would absolutely disbelieve such a statement, and consider the result as

a proof that they were distinct species. I do not go so far as that,

but the case seems highly improbable. Blyth has studied the Indian

Ruminantia. I have been much struck about what you say of lowland plants

ascending mountains, but the alpine not descending. How I do hope you

will get up some mountains in Borneo; how curious the result will be!

By the way, I never heard from you what affinity the Maldive flora has,

which is cruel, as you tempted me by making me guess. I sometimes groan

over your Indian journey, when I think over all your locked up riches.

When shall I see a memoir on Insular floras, and on the Pacific? What

a grand subject Alpine floras of the world (27/1. Mr. William Botting

Hemsley, F.R.S., of the Royal Gardens, Kew, is now engaged on a

monograph of the high-level Alpine plants of the world.) would be,

as far as known; and then you have never given a coup d'oeil on the

similarity and dissimilarity of Arctic and Antarctic floras. Well, thank

heavens, when you do come back you will be nolens volens a fixture. I am

particularly glad you have been at the Coal; I have often since you went

gone on maundering on the subject, and I shall never rest easy in Down

churchyard without the problem be solved by some one before I die.

Talking of dying makes me tell you that my confounded stomach is much

the same; indeed, of late has been rather worse, but for the last year,

I think, I have been able to do more work. I have done nothing besides

the barnacles, except, indeed, a little theoretical paper on erratic

boulders (27/2. "On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a Lower to

a Higher Level" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume IV., pages 315-23.

1848). In this paper Darwin favours the view that the transport of

boulders was effected by coast-ice. An earlier paper entitled "Notes on

the Effects produced by the ancient Glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on

the Boulders transported by floating Ice" ("Phil. Mag." 1842, page 352)

is spoken of by Sir Archibald Geikie as standing "almost at the top of

the long list of English contributions to the history of the Ice

Age" ("Charles Darwin," "Nature" Series, page 23).), and Scientific

Geological Instructions for the Admiralty Volume (27/3. "A manual of

Scientific Enquiry, prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy, and

adapted for Travellers in General." Edited by Sir John F.W. Herschel,

Bart. Section VI.--Geology--by Charles Darwin. London, 1849. See "Life

and Letters," pages 328-9.), which cost me some trouble. This work,

which is edited by Sir J. Herschel, is a very good job, inasmuch as

the captains of men-of-war will now see that the Admiralty cares for

science, and so will favour naturalists on board. As for a man who is

not scientific by nature, I do not believe instructions will do him any

good; and if he be scientific and good for anything the instructions

will be superfluous. I do not know who does the Botany; Owen does the

Zoology, and I have sent him an account of my new simple microscope,

which I consider perfect, even better than yours by Chevalier. N.B. I

have got a 1/8 inch object-glass, and it is grand. I have been getting

on well with my beloved Cirripedia, and get more skilful in dissection.

I have worked out the nervous system pretty well in several genera,

and made out their ears and nostrils (27/4. For the olfactory sacs see

Darwin's "Monograph of the Cirripedia," 1851, page 52.), which were

quite unknown. I have lately got a bisexual cirripede, the male being

microscopically small and parasitic within the sack of the female. I

tell you this to boast of my species theory, for the nearest closely

allied genus to it is, as usual, hermaphrodite, but I had observed some

minute parasites adhering to it, and these parasites I now can show are

supplemental males, the male organs in the hermaphrodite being unusually

small, though perfect and containing zoosperms: so we have almost a

polygamous animal, simple females alone being wanting. I never should

have made this out, had not my species theory convinced me, that an

hermaphrodite species must pass into a bisexual species by insensibly

small stages; and here we have it, for the male organs in the

hermaphrodite are beginning to fail, and independent males ready formed.

But I can hardly explain what I mean, and you will perhaps wish my

barnacles and species theory al Diavolo together. But I don't care what

you say, my species theory is all gospel. We have had only one party

here: viz., of the Lyells, Forbes, Owen, and Ramsay, and we both missed

you and Falconer very much...I know more of your history than you will

suppose, for Miss Henslow most good-naturedly sent me a packet of your

letters, and she wrote me so nice a little note that it made me quite

proud. I have not heard of anything in the scientific line which

would interest you. Sir H. De la Beche (27/5. The Presidential Address

delivered by De la Beche before the Geological Society in 1848 ("Quart.

Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume IV., "Proceedings," page xxi, 1848).) gave a

very long and rather dull address; the most interesting part was from

Sir J. Ross. Mr. Beete Jukes figured in it very prominently: it really

is a very nice quality in Sir Henry, the manner in which he pushes

forward his subordinates. Jukes has since read what was considered a

very valuable paper. The man, not content with moustaches, now sports

an entire beard, and I am sure thinks himself like Jupiter tonans. There

was a short time since a not very creditable discussion at a meeting

of the Royal Society, where Owen fell foul of Mantell with fury and

contempt about belemnites. What wretched doings come from the order of

fame; the love of truth alone would never make one man attack another

bitterly. My paper is full, so I must wish you with all my heart

farewell. Heaven grant that your health may keep good.

LETTER 28. TO J.S. HENSLOW. The Lodge, Malvern, May 6th, 1849.

Your kind note has been forwarded to me here. You will be surprised to

hear that we all--children, servants, and all--have been here for nearly

two months. All last autumn and winter my health grew worse and worse:

incessant sickness, tremulous hands, and swimming head. I thought I was

going the way of all flesh. Having heard of much success in some cases

from the cold-water cure, I determined to give up all attempts to do

anything and come here and put myself under Dr. Gully. It has answered

to a considerable extent: my sickness much checked and considerable

strength gained. Dr. G., moreover (and I hear he rarely speaks

confidently), tells me he has little doubt but that he can cure me in

the course of time--time, however, it will take. I have experienced

enough to feel sure that the cold-water cure is a great and powerful

agent and upsetter of all constitutional habits. Talking of habits, the

cruel wretch has made me leave off snuff--that chief solace of life. We

thank you most sincerely for your prompt and early invitation to Hitcham

for the British Association for 1850 (28/1. The invitation was probably

not for 1850, but for 1851, when the Association met at Ipswich.): if

I am made well and strong, most gladly will I accept it; but as I have

been hitherto, a drive every day of half a dozen miles would be more

than I could stand with attending any of the sections. I intend going to

Birmingham (28/2. The Association met at Birmingham in 1849.) if able;

indeed, I am bound to attempt it, for I am honoured beyond all measure

in being one of the Vice-Presidents. I am uncommonly glad you will be

there; I fear, however, we shall not have any such charming trips as

Nuneham and Dropmore. (28/3. In a letter to Hooker (October 12th, 1849)

Darwin speaks of "that heavenly day at Dropmore." ("Life and Letters,"

I., page 379.)) We shall stay here till at least June 1st, perhaps till

July 1st; and I shall have to go on with the aqueous treatment at home

for several more months. One most singular effect of the treatment

is that it induces in most people, and eminently in my case, the most

complete stagnation of mind. I have ceased to think even of barnacles!

I heard some time since from Hooker...How capitally he seems to have

succeeded in all his enterprises! You must be very busy now. I happened

to be thinking the other day over the Gamlingay trip to the Lilies

of the Valley (28/4. The Lily of the Valley (Convallaria majalis)

is recorded from Gamlingay by Professor Babington in his "Flora of

Cambridgeshire," page 234. (London, 1860.)): ah, those were delightful

days when one had no such organ as a stomach, only a mouth and the

masticating appurtenances. I am very much surprised at what you say,

that men are beginning to work in earnest [at] Botany. What a loss it

will be for Natural History that you have ceased to reside all the year

in Cambridge!

LETTER 29. TO J.F. ROYLE. Down, September 1st [184-?].

I return you with very many thanks your valuable work. I am sure I

have not lost any slip or disarranged the loose numbers. I have been

interested by looking through the volumes, though I have not found quite

so much as I had thought possible about the varieties of the Indian

domestic animals and plants, and the attempts at introduction have been

too recent for the effects (if any) of climate to have been developed.

I have, however, been astonished and delighted at the evidence of the

energetic attempts to do good by such numbers of people, and most of

them evidently not personally interested in the result. Long may

our rule flourish in India. I declare all the labour shown in

these transactions is enough by itself to make one proud of one's

countrymen...

LETTER 30. TO HUGH STRICKLAND.

(30/1. The first paragraph of this letter is published in the "Life and

Letters," I., page 372, as part of a series of letters to Strickland,

beginning at page 365, where a biographical note by Professor Newton is

also given. Professor Newton wrote: "In 1841 he brought the subject

of Natural History Nomenclature before the British Association, and

prepared the code of rules for Zoological Nomenclature, now known by his

name--the principles of which are very generally accepted." Mr. Darwin's

reasons against appending the describer's name to that of the species

are given in "Life and Letters," page 366. The present letter is

of interest as giving additional details in regard to Darwin's

difficulties.)

Down, February 10th [1849].

I have again to thank you cordially for your letter. Your remarks shall

fructify to some extent, and I will try to be more faithful to rigid

virtue and priority; but as for calling Balanus "Lepas" (which I did

not think of) I cannot do it, my pen won't write it--it is impossible. I

have great hopes some of my difficulties will disappear, owing to wrong

dates in Agassiz and to my having to run several genera into one; for I

have as yet gone, in but few cases, to original sources. With respect to

adopting my own notions in my Cirripedia book, I should not like to do

so without I found others approved, and in some public way; nor indeed

is it well adapted, as I can never recognise a species without I have

the original specimen, which fortunately I have in many cases in the

British Museum. Thus far I mean to adopt my notion, in never putting

mihi or Darwin after my own species, and in the anatomical text giving

no authors' names at all, as the systematic part will serve for those

who want to know the history of the species as far as I can imperfectly

work it out.

I have had a note from W. Thompson (30/2. Mr. Thompson is described in

the preface to the Lepadidae as "the distinguished Natural Historian

of Ireland.") this morning, and he tells me Ogleby has some scheme

identical almost with mine. I feel pretty sure there is a growing

general aversion to the appendage of author's name, except in cases

where necessary. Now at this moment I have seen specimens ticketed with

a specific name and no reference--such are hopelessly inconvenient;

but I declare I would rather (as saving time) have a reference to some

second systematic work than to the original author, for I have cases of

this which hardly help me at all, for I know not where to look amongst

endless periodical foreign papers. On the other hand, one can get hold

of most systematic works and so follow up the scent, and a species does

not long lie buried exclusively in a paper.

I thank you sincerely for your very kind offer of occasionally assisting

me with your opinion, and I will not trespass much. I have a case, but

[it is one] about which I am almost sure; and so to save you writing, if

I conclude rightly, pray do not answer, and I shall understand silence

as assent.

Olfers in 1814 made Lepas aurita Linn. into the genus Conchoderma;

[Oken] in 1815 gave the name Branta to Lepas aurita and vittata, and

by so doing he alters essentially Olfers' generic definition. Oken was

right (as it turns out), and Lepas aurita and vittata must form together

one genus. (30/3. In the "Monograph on the Cirripedia" (Lepadidae) the

names used are Conchoderma aurita and virgata.) (I leave out of question

a multitude of subsequent synonyms.) Now I suppose I must retain

Conchoderma of Olfers. I cannot make out a precise rule in the "British

Association Report" for this. When a genus is cut into two I see that

the old name is retained for part and altered to it; so I suppose the

definition may be enlarged to receive another species--though the cases

are somewhat different. I should have had no doubt if Lepas aurita and

vittata had been made into two genera, for then when run together the

oldest of the two would have been retained. Certainly to put Conchoderma

Olfers is not quite correct when applied to the two species, for such

was not Olfers' definition and opinion. If I do not hear, I shall retain

Conchoderma for the two species...

P.S.--Will you by silence give consent to the following?

Linnaeus gives no type to his genus Lepas, though L. balanus comes

first. Several oldish authors have used Lepas exclusively for the

pedunculate division, and the name has been given to the family and

compounded in sub-generic names. Now, this shows that old authors

attached the name Lepas more particularly to the pedunculate division.

Now, if I were to use Lepas for Anatifera (30/4. Anatifera and Anatifa

were used as generic names for what Linnaeus and Darwin called Lepas

anatifera.) I should get rid of the difficulty of the second edition of

Hill and of the difficulty of Anatifera vel Anatifa. Linnaeus's generic

description is equally applicable to Anatifera and Balanus, though the

latter stands first. Must the mere precedence rigorously outweigh the

apparent opinion of many old naturalists? As for using Lepas in place

of Balanus, I cannot. Every one will understand what is meant by Lepas

Anatifera, so that convenience would be wonderfully thus suited. If I do

not hear, I shall understand I have your consent.

LETTER 31. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(31/1. In the "Life and Letters," I., page 392, is a letter to Sir J.D.

Hooker from Mr. Darwin, to whom the former had dedicated his "Himalayan

Journals." Mr. Darwin there wrote: "Your letter, received this morning,

has interested me extremely, and I thank you sincerely for telling me

your old thoughts and aspirations." The following is the letter referred

to, which at our request Sir Joseph has allowed us to publish.)

Kew, March 1st, 1854.

Now that my book (31/2. "Himalayan Journals," 2 volumes. London, 1854.)

has been publicly acknowledged to be of some value, I feel bold to

write to you; for, to tell you the truth, I have never been without a

misgiving that the dedication might prove a very bad compliment, however

kindly I knew you would receive it. The idea of the dedication has been

present to me from a very early date: it was formed during the Antarctic

voyage, out of love for your own "Journal," and has never deserted me

since; nor would it, I think, had I never known more of you than by

report and as the author of the said "Naturalist's Journal." Short of

the gratification I felt in getting the book out, I know no greater than

your kind, hearty acceptation of the dedication; and, had the reviewers

gibbeted me, the dedication would alone have given me real pain. I have

no wish to assume a stoical indifference to public opinion, for I am

well alive to it, and the critics might have irritated me sorely, but

they could never have caused me the regret that the association of your

name with a bad book of mine would have.

You will laugh when I tell you that, my book out, I feel past the

meridian of life! But you do not know how from my earliest childhood I

nourished and cherished the desire to make a creditable journey in a new

country, and write such a respectable account of its natural features as

should give me a niche amongst the scientific explorers of the globe

I inhabit, and hand my name down as a useful contributor of original

matter. A combination of most rare advantages has enabled me to gain

as much of my object as contents me, for I never wished to be greatest

amongst you, nor did rivalry ever enter my thoughts. No ulterior object

has ever been present to me in this pursuit. My ambition is fully

gratified by the satisfactory completion of my task, and I am now happy

to go on jog-trot at Botany till the end of my days--downhill, in one

sense, all the way. I shall never have such another object to work for,

nor shall I feel the want of it...As it is, the craving of thirty

years is satisfied, and I now look back on life in a way I never could

previously. There never was a past hitherto to me. The phantom was

always in view; mayhap it is only a "ridiculus mus" after all, but it is

big enough for me...

(PLATE: T.H. HUXLEY, 1857. Maull & Polyblank photo., Walker & Cockerell

ph. sc.)

(32/1. The story of Huxley's life has been fully given in the

interesting biography edited by Mr. Leonard Huxley. (32/2. "Life and

Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley." London 1900.) Readers of this book and

of the "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" gain an insight into the

relationship between this pair of friends to which any words of ours can

add but little. Darwin realised to the full the essential strength of

Mr. Huxley's nature; he knew, as all the world now knows, the delicate

sense of honour of his friend, and he was ever inclined to lean on his

guidance in practical matters, as on an elder brother. Of Mr. Huxley's

dialectical and literary skill he was an enthusiastic admirer, and

he never forgot what his theories owed to the fighting powers of his

"general agent." (32/3. Ibid., I., page 171.) Huxley's estimate of

Darwin is very interesting: he valued him most highly for what was so

strikingly characteristic of himself--the love of truth. He spoke of

finding in him "something bigger than ordinary humanity--an unequalled

simplicity and directness of purpose--a sublime unselfishness." (32/4.

Ibid., II., page 94. Huxley is speaking of Gordon's death, and goes on:

"Of all the people whom I have met with in my life, he and Darwin are

the two in whom I have found," etc.) The same point of view comes out in

Huxley's estimate of Darwin's mental power. (32/5. Ibid., II., page

39.) "He had a clear, rapid intelligence, a great memory, a vivid

imagination, and what made his greatness was the strict subordination of

all these to his love of truth." This, as an analysis of Darwin's mental

equipment, seems to us incomplete, though we do not pretend to mend

it. We do not think it is possible to dissect and label the complex

qualities which go to make up that which we all recognise as genius.

But, if we may venture to criticise, we would say that Mr. Huxley's

words do not seem to cover that supreme power of seeing and thinking

what the rest of the world had overlooked, which was one of Darwin's

most striking characteristics. As throwing light on the quality of their

friendship, we give below a letter which has already appeared in the

"Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," I., page 366. Mr. L. Huxley gives an

account of the breakdown in health which convinced Huxley's friends that

rest and relief from anxiety must be found for him. Mr. L. Huxley aptly

remarks of the letter, "It is difficult to say whether it does more

honour to him who sent it or to him who received it." (32/6. Huxley's

"Life," I., page 366. Mr. Darwin left to Mr. Huxley a legacy of 1,000

pounds, "as a slight memorial of my lifelong affection and respect for

him."))

LETTER 32. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 23rd, 1873.

My dear Huxley

I have been asked by some of your friends (eighteen in number) to inform

you that they have placed, through Robarts, Lubbock & Co., the sum

of 2,100 pounds to your account at your bankers. We have done this

to enable you to get such complete rest as you may require for the

re-establishment of your health; and in doing this we are convinced that

we act for the public interest, as well as in accordance with our most

earnest desires. Let me assure you that we are all your warm personal

friends, and that there is not a stranger or mere acquaintance amongst

us. If you could have heard what was said, or could have read what

was, as I believe, our inmost thoughts, you would know that we all feel

towards you, as we should to an honoured and much loved brother. I am

sure that you will return this feeling, and will therefore be glad to

give us the opportunity of aiding you in some degree, as this will be a

happiness to us to the last day of our lives. Let me add that our plan

occurred to several of your friends at nearly the same time and quite

independently of one another.

My dear Huxley, Your affectionate friend, CHARLES DARWIN.

LETTER 33. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(33/1. The following letter is one of the earliest of the long series

addressed to Mr. Huxley.)

Down, April 23rd [1854].

My dear Sir

I have got out all the specimens, which I have thought could by any

possibility be of any use to you; but I have not looked at them, and

know not what state they are in, but should be much pleased if they are

of the smallest use to you. I enclose a catalogue of habitats: I thought

my notes would have turned out of more use. I have copied out such few

points as perhaps would not be apparent in preserved specimens. The

bottle shall go to Mr. Gray on Thursday next by our weekly carrier.

I am very much obliged for your paper on the Mollusca (33/2. The paper

of Huxley's is "On the Morphology of the Cephalous Mollusca, etc."

("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 143, Part I., 1853, page 29.)); I have

read it all with much interest: but it would be ridiculous in me to make

any remarks on a subject on which I am so utterly ignorant; but I can

see its high importance. The discovery of the type or "idea" (33/3.

Huxley defines his use of the word "archetype" at page 50: "All that I

mean is the conception of a form embodying the most general propositions

that can be affirmed respecting the Cephalous Mollusca, standing in the

same relation to them as the diagram to a geometrical theorem, and like

it, at once, imaginary and true.") (in your sense, for I detest the word

as used by Owen, Agassiz & Co.) of each great class, I cannot doubt,

is one of the very highest ends of Natural History; and certainly most

interesting to the worker-out. Several of your remarks have interested

me: I am, however, surprised at what you say versus "anamorphism" (33/4.

The passage referred to is at page 63: "If, however, all Cephalous

Mollusks...be only modifications by excess or defect of the parts of

a definite archetype, then, I think, it follows as a necessary

consequence, that no anamorphism takes place in this group. There is

no progression from a lower to a higher type, but merely a more or

less complete evolution of one type." Huxley seems to use the term

anamorphism in a sense differing from that of some writers. Thus in

Jourdan's "Dictionnaire des Termes Usites dans les Sciences Naturelles,"

1834, it is defined as the production of an atypical form either by

arrest or excess of development.), I should have thought that the

archetype in imagination was always in some degree embryonic, and

therefore capable [of] and generally undergoing further development.

Is it not an extraordinary fact, the great difference in position of the

heart in different species of Cleodora? (33/5. A genus of Pteropods.) I

am a believer that when any part, usually constant, differs considerably

in different allied species that it will be found in some degree

variable within the limits of the same species. Thus, I should expect

that if great numbers of specimens of some of the species of Cleodora

had been examined with this object in view, the position of the heart in

some of the species would have been found variable. Can you aid me with

any analogous facts?

I am very much pleased to hear that you have not given up the idea of

noticing my cirripedial volume. All that I have seen since confirms

everything of any importance stated in that volume--more especially I

have been able rigorously to confirm in an anomalous species, by the

clearest evidence, that the actual cellular contents of the ovarian

tubes, by the gland-like action of a modified portion of the continuous

tube, passes into the cementing stuff: in fact cirripedes make glue out

of their own unformed eggs! (33/6. On Darwin's mistake in this point see

"Life and Letters," III., page 2.)

Pray believe me, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.

I told the above case to Milne Edwards, and I saw he did not place the

smallest belief in it.

LETTER 34. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 2nd, [1854].

My second volume on the everlasting barnacles is at last published

(34/1. "A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia. II. The Balanidae, the

Verrucidae." Ray Society, 1854.), and I will do myself the pleasure of

sending you a copy to Jermyn Street next Thursday, as I have to send

another book then to Mr. Baily.

And now I want to ask you a favour--namely, to answer me two questions.

As you are so perfectly familiar with the doings, etc., of all

Continental naturalists, I want you to tell me a few names of those

whom you think would care for my volume. I do not mean in the light of

puffing my book, but I want not to send copies to those who from other

studies, age, etc., would view it as waste paper. From assistance

rendered me, I consider myself bound to send copies to: (1) Bosquet of

Maestricht, (2) Milne Edwards, (3) Dana, (4) Agassiz, (5) Muller, (6)

W. Dunker of Hesse Cassel. Now I have five or six other copies to

distribute, and will you be so very kind as to help me? I had thought of

Von Siebold, Loven, d'Orbigny, Kolliker, Sars, Kroyer, etc., but I know

hardly anything about any of them.

My second question, it is merely a chance whether you can answer,--it is

whether I can send these books or any of them (in some cases accompanied

by specimens), through the Royal Society: I have some vague idea of

having heard that the Royal Society did sometimes thus assist members.

I have just been reading your review of the "Vestiges" (34/2. In his

chapter on the "Reception of the Origin of Species" ("Life and Letters,"

II., pages 188-9), Mr. Huxley wrote: "and the only review I ever have

qualms of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one

I wrote on the 'Vestiges.'" The article is in the "British and Foreign

Medico-chirurgical Review," XIII., 1854, page 425. The "great man"

referred to below is Owen: see Huxley's review, page 439, and Huxley's

"Life." I., page 94.), and the way you handle a great Professor is

really exquisite and inimitable. I have been extremely interested in

other parts, and to my mind it is incomparably the best review I have

read on the "Vestiges"; but I cannot think but that you are rather hard

on the poor author. I must think that such a book, if it does no other

good, spreads the taste for Natural Science.

But I am perhaps no fair judge, for I am almost as unorthodox

about species as the "Vestiges" itself, though I hope not quite so

unphilosophical. How capitally you analyse his notion about law. I

do not know when I have read a review which interested me so much. By

Heavens, how the blood must have gushed into the capillaries when a

certain great man (whom with all his faults I cannot help liking) read

it!

I am rather sorry you do not think more of Agassiz's embryological

stages (34/3. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 310: also Letter 40,

Note.), for though I saw how exceedingly weak the evidence was, I was

led to hope in its truth.

LETTER 35. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1854].

With respect to "highness" and "lowness," my ideas are only eclectic and

not very clear. It appears to me that an unavoidable wish to compare all

animals with men, as supreme, causes some confusion; and I think that

nothing besides some such vague comparison is intended, or perhaps is

even possible, when the question is whether two kingdoms such as the

Articulata or Mollusca are the highest. Within the same kingdom I am

inclined to think that "highest" usually means that form which has

undergone most "morphological differentiation" from the common embryo or

archetype of the class; but then every now and then one is bothered

(as Milne Edwards has remarked) by "retrograde development," i.e.,

the mature animal having fewer and less important organs than its own

embryo. The specialisation of parts to different functions, or

"the division of physiological labour" (35/1. A slip of the pen for

"physiological division of labour.") of Milne Edwards exactly agrees

(and to my mind is the best definition, when it can be applied)

with what you state is your idea in regard to plants. I do not think

zoologists agree in any definite ideas on this subject; and my ideas are

not clearer than those of my brethren.

LETTER 36. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 2nd [1854].

I have had the house full of visitors, and when I talk I can do

absolutely nothing else; and since then I have been poorly enough,

otherwise I should have answered your letter long before this, for I

enjoy extremely discussing such points as those in your last note. But

what a villain you are to heap gratuitous insults on my ELASTIC theory:

you might as well call the virtue of a lady elastic, as the virtue of a

theory accommodating in its favours. Whatever you may say, I feel that

my theory does give me some advantages in discussing these points. But

to business: I keep my notes in such a way, viz., in bulk, that I cannot

possibly lay my hand on any reference; nor as far as the vegetable

kingdom is concerned do I distinctly remember having read any discussion

on general highness or lowness, excepting Schleiden (I fancy) on

Compositae being highest. Ad. de Jussieu (36/1. "Monographie de la

Famille des Malpighiacees," by Adrien de Jussieu, "Arch. du Museum."

Volume III., page 1, 1843.), in "Arch. du Museum," Tome 3, discusses

the value of characters of degraded flowers in the Malpighiaceae, but I

doubt whether this at all concerns you. Mirbel somewhere has discussed

some such question.

Plants lie under an enormous disadvantage in respect to such discussions

in not passing through larval stages. I do not know whether you

can distinguish a plant low from non-development from one low from

degradation, which theoretically, at least, are very distinct. I must

agree with Forbes that a mollusc may be higher than one articulate

animal and lower than another; if one was asked which was highest as a

whole, the Molluscan or Articulate Kingdom, I should look to and compare

the highest in each, and not compare their archetypes (supposing them to

be known, which they are not.)

But there are, in my opinion, more difficult cases than any we have

alluded to, viz., that of fish--but my ideas are not clear enough, and

I do not suppose you would care to hear what I obscurely think on this

subject. As far as my elastic theory goes, all I care about is that very

ancient organisms (when different from existing) should tend to resemble

the larval or embryological stages of the existing.

I am glad to hear what you say about parallelism: I am an utter

disbeliever of any parallelism more than mere accident. It is very

strange, but I think Forbes is often rather fanciful; his "Polarity"

(36/2. See Letter 41, Note.) makes me sick--it is like "magnetism"

turning a table.