CHAPTER 1.III.--EVOLUTION, 1859-1863.

LETTER 71. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 6th, 1859.

I this morning received your pleasant and friendly note of November

30th. The first part of my MS. is in Murray's hands to see if he likes

to publish it. There is no preface, but a short introduction, which

must be read by every one who reads my book. The second paragraph in the

introduction (71/1. "Origin of Species," Edition I., 1859, pages 1 and

2.) I have had copied verbatim from my foul copy, and you will, I hope,

think that I have fairly noticed your paper in the "Linn. Journal."

(71/2. "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties, and on the

Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection." By

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. Communicated by Sir Charles

Lyell and J.D. Hooker. "Journ. Linn. Soc." Volume III., page 45, 1859.

(Read July 1st, 1858.)) You must remember that I am now publishing only

an abstract, and I give no references. I shall, of course, allude to

your paper on distribution (71/3. "On the Law which has regulated the

Introduction of New Species" (A.R. Wallace). "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist."

Volume XVI., page 184, 1855. The law alluded to is thus stated by

Wallace: "Every species has come into existence coincident both in space

and time with a pre-existing closely allied species" (loc. cit., page

186).); and I have added that I know from correspondence that your

explanation of your law is the same as that which I offer. You are

right, that I came to the conclusion that selection was the principle

of change from the study of domesticated productions; and then, reading

Malthus, I saw at once how to apply this principle. Geographical

distribution and geological relations of extinct to recent inhabitants

of South America first led me to the subject: especially the case of

the Galapagos Islands. I hope to go to press in the early part of next

month. It will be a small volume of about five hundred pages or so. I

will of course send you a copy. I forget whether I told you that Hooker,

who is our best British botanist and perhaps the best in the world, is a

full convert, and is now going immediately to publish his confession

of faith; and I expect daily to see proof-sheets. (71/4. "The Flora of

Australia, etc., an Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania." London

1859.) Huxley is changed, and believes in mutation of species: whether a

convert to us, I do not quite know. We shall live to see all the younger

men converts. My neighbour and an excellent naturalist, J. Lubbock,

is an enthusiastic convert. I see that you are doing great work in the

Archipelago; and most heartily do I sympathise with you. For God's sake

take care of your health. There have been few such noble labourers in

the cause of Natural Science as you are.

P.S. You cannot tell how I admire your spirit, in the manner in which

you have taken all that was done about publishing all our papers. I

had actually written a letter to you, stating that I would not publish

anything before you had published. I had not sent that letter to the

post when I received one from Lyell and Hooker, urging me to send some

MS. to them, and allow them to act as they thought fair and honestly to

both of us; and I did so.

(71/5. The following is the passage from the Introduction to the "Origin

of Species," referred to in the first paragraph of the above letter.)

"My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three

years more to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have

been urged to publish this Abstract. I have more especially been induced

to do this, as Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the Natural History of

the Malay Archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general

conclusions that I have on the origin of species. Last year he sent to

me a memoir on this subject, with a request that I would forward it

to Sir Charles Lyell, who sent it to the Linnean Society, and it is

published in the third volume of the Journal of that Society. Sir C.

Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my work--the latter having read

my sketch of 1844--honoured me by thinking it advisable to publish,

with Mr. Wallace's excellent memoir, some brief extracts from my

manuscripts."

LETTER 72. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 3rd, 1859.

With respect to reversion, I have been raking up vague recollections of

vague facts; and the impression on my mind is rather more in favour of

reversion than it was when you were here.

In my abstract (72/1. "The Origin of Species.") I give only a paragraph

on the general case of reversion, though I enter in detail on some cases

of reversion of a special character. I have not as yet put all my facts

on this subject in mass, so can come to no definite conclusion. But as

single characters may revert, I must say that I see no improbability in

several reverting. As I do not believe any well-founded experiments or

facts are known, each must form his opinion from vague generalities.

I think you confound two rather distinct considerations; a variation

arises from any cause, and reversion is not opposed to this, but solely

to its inheritance. Not but what I believe what we must call perhaps

a dozen distinct laws are all struggling against each other in every

variation which ever arises. To give my impression, if I were forced

to bet whether or not, after a hundred generations of growth in a poor

sandy soil, a cauliflower and red cabbage would or would not revert to

the same form, I must say I would rather stake my money that they would.

But in such a case the conditions of life are changed (and here comes

the question of direct influence of condition), and there is to be no

selection, the comparatively sudden effect of man's selection are left

to the free play of reversion.

In short, I dare not come to any conclusion without comparing all facts

which I have collected, and I do not think there are many.

Please do not say to any one that I thought my book on species would be

fairly popular and have a fairly remunerative sale (which was the height

of my ambition), for if it prove a dead failure it would make me the

more ridiculous.

LETTER 73. TO W.H. MILLER. Down, June 5th [1859].

I thank you much for your letter. Had I seen the interest of my remark

I would have made many more measurements, though I did make several.

I stated the facts merely to give the general reader an idea of the

thickness of the walls. (73/1. The walls of bees' cells: see Letter

173.)

Especially if I had seen that the fact had any general bearing, I should

have stated that as far as I could measure, the walls are by no means

perfectly of the same thickness. Also I should have stated that the

chief difference is when the thickness of walls of the upper part of

the hexagon and of the pyramidal basal plates are contrasted. Will you

oblige me by looking with a strong lens at the bit of comb, brushing off

with a knife the upper thickened edges, and then compare, by eye alone,

the thickness of the walls there with the thickness of the basal plates,

as seen in any cross section. I should very much like to hear whether,

even in this way, the difference is not perceptible. It is generally

thus perceptible by comparing the thickness of the walls of the hexagon

(if not taken very close to the angle) near to the basal plates, where

the comparison by eye is of course easier. Your letter actually turned

me sick with panic; from not seeing any great importance [in the]

fact, till I looked at my notes, I did not remember that I made several

measurements. I have now repeated the same measurements, roughly with

the same general results, but the difference, I think, is hardly double.

I should not have mentioned the thickness of the basal plates at all,

had I not thought it would give an unfair notion of the thickness of the

walls to state the lesser measurements alone.

LETTER 74. TO W.H. MILLER. [1859]

I had no thought that you would measure the thickness of the walls of

the cells; but if you will, and allow me to give your measurements,

it will be an immense advantage. As it is no trouble, I send more

specimens. If you measure, please observe that I measured the thickness

of the walls of the hexagonal prisms not very near the base; but from

your very interesting remarks the lower part of the walls ought to be

measured.

Thank you for the suggestion about how bees judge of angles and

distances. I will keep it in mind. It is a complete perplexity to me,

and yet certainly insects can rudely somehow judge of distance. There

are special difficulties on account of the gradation in size between the

worker-scells and the larger drone-cells. I am trying to test the case

practically by getting combs of different species, and of our own bee

from different climates. I have lately had some from the W. Indies of

our common bee, but the cells SEEM certainly to be larger; but they have

not yet been carefully measured. I will keep your suggestion in mind

whenever I return to experiments on living bees; but that will not be

soon.

As you have been considering my little discussion in relation to Lord

Brougham (74/1. Lord Brougham's paper on "The Mathematical Structure

of Bees' Cells," read before the National Institute of France in May,

1858.), and as I have been more vituperated for this part than for

almost any other, I should like just to tell you how I think the case

stands. The discussion viewed by itself is worth little more than the

paper on which it is printed, except in so far as it contains three or

four certainly new facts. But to those who are inclined to believe the

general truth of the conclusion that species and their instincts are

slowly modified by what I call Natural Selection, I think my discussion

nearly removes a very great difficulty. I believe in its truth chiefly

from the existence of the Melipona, which makes a comb so intermediate

in structure between that of the humble and hive-bee, and especially

from the new and curious fact of the bees making smooth cups or saucers

when they excavated in a thick piece of wax, which saucers stood so

close that hexagons were built on their intersecting edges. And, lastly,

because when they excavated on a thin slip of wax, the excavation on

both sides of similar smooth basins was stopped, and flat planes left

between the nearly opposed basins. If my view were wholly false these

cases would, I think, never have occurred. Sedgwick and Co. may abuse me

to their hearts' content, but I shall as yet continue to think that mine

is a rational explanation (as far as it goes) of their method of work.

LETTER 75. TO W.H. MILLER.

Down, December 1st [1859].

Some months ago you were so kind as to say you would measure the

thickness of the walls of the basal and side plates of the cell of the

bee. Could you find time to do so soon? Why I want it soon, is that I

have lately heard from Murray that he sold at his sale far more copies

than he has of the "Origin of Species," and that I must immediately

prepare a new edition, which I am now correcting. By the way, I hear

from Murray that all the attacks heaped on my book do not seem to have

at all injured the sale, which will make poor dear old Sedgwick groan.

If the basal plates and walls do differ considerably in thickness, as

they certainly did in the one or two cells which I measured without

particular care (as I never thought the point of any importance), will

you tell me the bearing of the fact as simply as you can, for the chance

of one so stupid as I am in geometry being able to understand?

Would the greater thickness of the basal plates and of the rim of the

hexagons be a good adaptation to carry the vertical weight of the cells

filled with honey and supporting clusters of living bees?

Will you endeavour to screw out time and grant me this favour?

P.S. If the result of your measurement of the thickness of the walls

turns out at all what I have asserted, would it not be worth while to

write a little bit of a paper on the subject of your former note; and

"pluck" the bees if they deserve this degradation? Many mathematicians

seem to have thought the subject worthy of attention. When the cells are

full of honey and hang vertically they have to support a great weight.

Can the thicker basal plates be a contrivance to give strength to the

whole comb, with less consumption of wax, than if all the sides of the

hexagons were thickened?

This crude notion formerly crossed my mind; but of course it is beyond

me even to conjecture how the case would be.

A mathematician, Mr. Wright, has been writing on the geometry of

bee-cells in the United States in consequence of my book; but I can

hardly understand his paper. (75/1. Chauncey Wright, "Remarks on the

Architecture of Bees" ("Amer. Acad. Proc." IV., 1857-60, page 432.)

LETTER 76. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(76/1. The date of this letter is unfortunately doubtful, otherwise

it would prove that at an early date he was acquainted with Erasmus

Darwin's views on evolution, a fact which has not always been

recognised. We can hardly doubt that it was written in 1859, for at

this time Mr. Huxley was collecting facts about breeding for his lecture

given at the Royal Institution on February 10th, 1860, on "Species and

Races and their Origin." See "Life and Letters," II., page 281.)

Down [June?] 9 [1859?].

If on the 11th you have half an hour to spare, you might like to see a

very good show of pigeons, and the enclosed card will admit you.

The history of error is quite unimportant, but it is curious to observe

how exactly and accurately my grandfather (in "Zoonomia," Volume I.,

page 504, 1794) gives Lamarck's theory. I will quote one sentence.

Speaking of birds' beaks, he says: "All which seem to have been

gradually produced during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of

the creatures to supply the want of food, and to have been delivered

to their posterity with constant improvement of them for the purposes

required." Lamarck published "Hist. Zoolog." in 1809. The "Zoonomia" was

translated into many languages.

LETTER 77. TO C. LYELL. Down, 28 [June 1859].

It is not worth while troubling you, but my conscience is uneasy at

having forgotten to thank you for your "Etna" (77/1. "On the Structure

of Lavas which have been consolidated on Steep Slopes, with remarks

on the Mode of Origin of Mount Etna, and on the Theory of 'Craters of

Elevation'" ("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume CXLVIII., 1858, page 703).),

which seems to me a magnificent contribution to volcanic geology, and I

should think you might now rest on your oars in this department.

As soon as ever I can get a copy of my book (77/2. "The Origin of

Species," London, 1859.) ready, in some six weeks' or two months' time,

it shall be sent you; and if you approve of it, even to a moderate

extent, it will be the highest satisfaction which I shall ever receive

for an amount of labour which no one will ever appreciate.

LETTER 78. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(78/1. The reference in the following letter is to the proofs of

Hooker's "Australian Flora.")

Down, 28 [July 1859].

The returned sheet is chiefly that which I received in MS. Parts seem to

me (though perhaps it may be forgetfulness) much improved, and I retain

my former impression that the whole discussion on the Australian flora

is admirably good and original. I know you will understand and not

object to my thus expressing my opinion (for one must form one) so

presumptuously. I have no criticisms, except perhaps I should like

you somewhere to say, when you refer to me, that you refer only to the

notice in the "Linnean Journal;" not that, on my deliberate word of

honour, I expect that you will think more favourably of the whole than

of the suggestion in the "Journal." I am far more than satisfied at what

you say of my work; yet it would be as well to avoid the appearance of

your remarks being a criticism on my fuller work.

I am very sorry to hear you are so hard-worked. I also get on very

slowly, and have hardly as yet finished half my volume...I returned on

last Tuesday from a week's hydropathy.

Take warning by me, and do not work too hard. For God's sake, think of

this.

It is dreadfully uphill work with me getting my confounded volume

finished.

I wish you well through all your labours. Adios.

LETTER 79. TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 29th [1859].

This shall be such an extraordinary note as you have never received from

me, for it shall not contain one single question or request. I thank you

for your impression on my views. Every criticism from a good man is of

value to me. What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work

will be grievously hypothetical, and large parts by no means worthy of

being called induction, my commonest error being probably induction from

too few facts. I had not thought of your objection of my using the term

"natural selection" as an agent. I use it much as a geologist does the

word denudation--for an agent, expressing the result of several combined

actions. I will take care to explain, not merely by inference, what I

mean by the term; for I must use it, otherwise I should incessantly have

to expand it into some such (here miserably expressed) formula as

the following: "The tendency to the preservation (owing to the severe

struggle for life to which all organic beings at some time or generation

are exposed) of any, the slightest, variation in any part, which is of

the slightest use or favourable to the life of the individual which

has thus varied; together with the tendency to its inheritance." Any

variation, which was of no use whatever to the individual, would not be

preserved by this process of "natural selection." But I will not weary

you by going on, as I do not suppose I could make my meaning clearer

without large expansion. I will only add one other sentence: several

varieties of sheep have been turned out together on the Cumberland

mountains, and one particular breed is found to succeed so much better

than all the others that it fairly starves the others to death. I should

here say that natural selection picks out this breed, and would tend to

improve it, or aboriginally to have formed it...

You speak of species not having any material base to rest on, but is

this any greater hardship than deciding what deserves to be called a

variety, and be designated by a Greek letter? When I was at systematic

work, I know I longed to have no other difficulty (great enough) than

deciding whether the form was distinct enough to deserve a name, and not

to be haunted with undefined and unanswerable questions whether it was a

true species. What a jump it is from a well-marked variety, produced by

natural cause, to a species produced by the separate act of the hand

of God! But I am running on foolishly. By the way, I met the other day

Phillips, the palaeontologist, and he asked me, "How do you define a

species?" I answered, "I cannot." Whereupon he said, "at last I have

found out the only true definition,--any form which has ever had a

specific name!"...

LETTER 80. TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, October 31st [1859].

That you may not misunderstand how far I go with Pallas and his many

disciples I should like to add that, though I believe that our domestic

dogs have descended from several wild forms, and though I must think

that the sterility, which they would probably have evinced, if crossed

before being domesticated, has been eliminated, yet I go but a very

little way with Pallas & Co. in their belief in the importance of

the crossing and blending of the aboriginal stocks. (80/1. "With our

domesticated animals, the various races when crossed together are quite

fertile; yet in many cases they are descended from two or more wild

species. From this fact we must conclude either that the aboriginal

parent-species at first produced perfectly fertile hybrids, or that the

hybrids subsequently reared under domestication became quite fertile.

This latter alternative, which was first propounded by Pallas, seems by

far the most probable, and can, indeed, hardly be doubted" ("Origin of

Species," Edition VI., page 240).) You will see this briefly put in the

first chapter. Generally, with respect to crossing, the effects may be

diametrically opposite. If you cross two very distinct races, you may

make (not that I believe such has often been made) a third and new

intermediate race; but if you cross two exceedingly close races, or two

slightly different individuals of the same race, then in fact you annul

and obliterate the difference. In this latter way I believe crossing is

all-important, and now for twenty years I have been working at flowers

and insects under this point of view. I do not like Hooker's terms,

centripetal and centrifugal (80/2. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the

Flora of Tasmania," pages viii. and ix.): they remind me of Forbes' bad

term of Polarity. (80/3. Forbes, "On the Manifestation of Polarity in

the Distribution of Organised Beings in Time."--"R. Institution Proc."

I., 1851-54.)

I daresay selection by man would generally work quicker than Natural

Selection; but the important distinction between them is, that man can

scarcely select except external and visible characters, and secondly, he

selects for his own good; whereas under nature, characters of all kinds

are selected exclusively for each creature's own good, and are well

exercised; but you will find all this in Chapter IV.

Although the hound, greyhound, and bull-dog may possibly have descended

from three distinct stocks, I am convinced that their present great

amount of difference is mainly due to the same causes which have made

the breeds of pigeons so different from each other, though these breeds

of pigeons have all descended from one wild stock; so that the Pallasian

doctrine I look at as but of quite secondary importance.

In my bigger book I have explained my meaning fully; whether I have in

the Abstract I cannot remember.

LETTER 81. TO C. LYELL. [December 5th, 1859.]

I forget whether you take in the "Times;" for the chance of your not

doing so, I send the enclosed rich letter. (81/1. See the "Times,"

December 1st and December 5th, 1859: two letters signed "Senex," dealing

with "Works of Art in the Drift.") It is, I am sure, by Fitz-Roy...It

is a pity he did not add his theory of the extinction of Mastodon, etc.,

from the door of the Ark being made too small. (81/2. A postscript to

this letter, here omitted, is published in the "Life and Letters," II.,

page 240.)

LETTER 82. FRANCIS GALTON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 42, Rutland Gate, London,

S.W., December 9th, 1859.

Pray let me add a word of congratulation on the completion of your

wonderful volume, to those which I am sure you will have received from

every side. I have laid it down in the full enjoyment of a feeling that

one rarely experiences after boyish days, of having been initiated into

an entirely new province of knowledge, which, nevertheless, connects

itself with other things in a thousand ways. I hear you are engaged on a

second edition. There is a trivial error in page 68, about rhinoceroses

(82/1. Down (loc. cit.) says that neither the elephant nor the

rhinoceros is destroyed by beasts of prey. Mr. Galton wrote that the

wild dogs hunt the young rhinoceros and "exhaust them to death; they

pursue them all day long, tearing at their ears, the only part their

teeth can fasten on." The reference to the rhinoceros is omitted in

later editions of the "Origin."), which I thought I might as well point

out, and have taken advantage of the same opportunity to scrawl down

half a dozen other notes, which may, or may not, be worthless to you.

(83/1. The three next letters refer to Huxley's lecture on Evolution,

given at the Royal Institution on February 10th, 1860, of which the

peroration is given in "Life and Letters," II., page 282, together with

some letters on the subject.)

LETTER 83. TO T.H. HUXLEY. November 25th [1859].

I rejoice beyond measure at the lecture. I shall be at home in a

fortnight, when I could send you splendid folio coloured drawings of

pigeons. Would this be in time? If not, I think I could write to my

servants and have them sent to you. If I do NOT hear I shall understand

that about fifteen or sixteen days will be in time.

I have had a kind yet slashing letter against me from poor dear old

Sedgwick, "who has laughed till his sides ached at my book."

Phillips is cautious, but decidedly, I fear, hostile. Hurrah for the

Lecture--it is grand!

LETTER 84. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 13th [1859].

I have got fine large drawings (84/1. For Mr. Huxley's R.I. lecture.)

of the Pouter, Carrier, and Tumbler; I have only drawings in books of

Fantails, Barbs, and Scanderoon Runts. If you had them, you would have

a grand display of extremes of diversity. Will they pay at the Royal

Institution for copying on a large size drawings of these birds? I could

lend skulls of a Carrier and a Tumbler (to show the great difference)

for the same purpose, but it would not probably be worth while.

I have been looking at my MS. What you want I believe is about hybridism

and breeding. The chapter on hybridism is in a pretty good state--about

150 folio pages with notes and references on the back. My first

chapter on breeding is in too bad and imperfect a state to send; but

my discussion on pigeons (in about 100 folio pages) is in a pretty good

state. I am perfectly convinced that you would never have patience to

read such volumes of MS. I speak now in the palace of truth, and pray do

you: if you think you would read them I will send them willingly up by

my servant, or bring them myself next week. But I have no copy, and I

never could possibly replace them; and without you really thought that

you would use them, I had rather not risk them. But I repeat I will

willingly bring them, if you think you would have the vast patience to

use them. Please let me hear on this subject, and whether I shall send

the book with small drawings of three other breeds or skulls. I have

heard a rumour that Busk is on our side in regard to species. Is this

so? It would be very good.

LETTER 85. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 16th [1859].

I thank you for your very pleasant and amusing note and invitation

to dinner, which I am sorry to say I cannot accept. I shall come up

(stomach willing) on Thursday for Phil. Club dinner, and return on

Saturday, and I am engaged to my brother for Friday. But I should very

much like to call at the Museum on Friday or Saturday morning and see

you. Would you let me have one line either here or at 57, Queen Anne

Street, to say at what hour you generally come to the Museum, and

whether you will be probably there on Friday or Saturday? Even if you

are at the Club, it will be a mere chance if we sit near each other.

I will bring up the articles on Thursday afternoon, and leave them under

charge of the porter at the Museum. They will consist of large

drawings of a Pouter, a Carrier, and rather smaller drawings of some

sub-varieties (which breed nearly true) of short-faced Tumblers. Also

a small drawing of Scanderoon, a kind of Runt, and a very remarkable

breed. Also a book with very moderately good drawings of Fantail and

Barb, but I very much doubt whether worth the trouble of enlarging.

Also a box (for Heaven's sake, take care!) with a skull of Carrier and

short-faced Tumbler; also lower jaws (largest size) of Runt, middle

size of Rock-pigeon, and the broad one of Barb. The form of ramus of jaw

differs curiously in these jaws.

Also MS. of hybridism and pigeons, which will just weary you to death.

I will call myself for or send a servant for the MS. and bones whenever

you have done with them; but do not hurry.

You have hit on the exact plan, which, on the advice of Lyell, Murray,

etc., I mean to follow--viz., bring out separate volumes in detail--and

I shall begin with domestic productions; but I am determined to try

and [work] very slowly, so that, if possible, I may keep in a somewhat

better state of health. I had not thought of illustrations; that

is capital advice. Farewell, my good and admirable agent for the

promulgation of damnable heresies!

LETTER 86. TO L. HORNER. Down, December 23rd [1859].

I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your extremely kind letter.

I am very much pleased that you approve of my book, and that you are

going to pay me the extraordinary compliment of reading it twice. I fear

that it is tough reading, but it is beyond my powers to make the subject

clearer. Lyell would have done it admirably.

You must enjoy being a gentlemen at your ease, and I hear that you have

returned with ardour to work at the Geological Society. We hope in the

course of the winter to persuade Mrs. Horner and yourself and daughters

to pay us a visit. Ilkley did me extraordinary good during the latter

part of my stay and during my first week at home; but I have gone back

latterly to my bad ways, and fear I shall never be decently well and

strong.

P.S.--When any of your party write to Mildenhall I should be much

obliged if you would say to Bunbury that I hope he will not forget,

whenever he reads my book, his promise to let me know what he thinks

about it; for his knowledge is so great and accurate that every one must

value his opinions highly. I shall be quite contented if his belief in

the immutability of species is at all staggered.

LETTER 87. TO C. LYELL.

(87/1. In the "Origin of Species" a section of Chapter X. is devoted to

"The succession of the same types within the same areas, during the late

Tertiary period" (Edition I., page 339). Mr. Darwin wrote as follows:

"Mr. Clift many years ago showed that the fossil mammals from the

Australian caves were closely allied to the living marsupials of that

continent." After citing other instances illustrating the same agreement

between fossil and recent types, Mr. Darwin continues: "I was so much

impressed with these facts that I strongly insisted, in 1839 and

1845, on this 'law of the succession of types,' on 'this wonderful

relationship in the same continent between the dead and the living.'

Professor Owen has subsequently extended the same generalisation to the

mammals of the Old World.")

Down, [December] 27th [1859].

Owen wrote to me to ask for the reference to Clift. As my own notes

for the late chapters are all in chaos, I bethought me who was the most

trustworthy man of all others to look for references, and I answered

myself, "Of course Lyell." In the ["Principles of Geology"], edition of

1833, Volume III., chapter xi., page 144, you will find the reference to

Clift in the "Edinburgh New Phil Journal," No. XX., page 394. (87/2. The

correct reference to Clift's "Report" on fossil bones from New Holland

is "Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," 1831, page 394.) You will also find

that you were greatly struck with the fact itself (87/3. This refers to

the discovery of recent and fossil species of animals in an Australian

cave-breccia. Mr. Clift is quoted as having identified one of the bones,

which was much larger than the rest, as that of a hippopotamus.), which

I had quite forgotten. I copied the passage, and sent it to Owen. Why

I gave in some detail references to my own work is that Owen (not the

first occasion with respect to myself and others) quietly ignores my

having ever generalised on the subject, and makes a great fuss on more

than one occasion at having discovered the law of succession. In fact,

this law, with the Galapagos distribution, first turned my mind on the

origin of species. My own references are [to the "Naturalist's Voyage"]:

Large 8vo, Murray,

Edition 1839 Edition 1845

Page 210 Page 173 On succession.

Page 153 Pages 131-32 On splitting up of old

geographical provinces.

Long before Owen published I had in MS. worked out the succession of

types in the Old World (as I remember telling Sedgwick, who of course

disbelieved it).

Since receiving your last letter on Hooker, I have read his introduction

as far as page xxiv (87/4. "On the Flora of Australia, etc.; being an

Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania": London, 1859.), where

the Australian flora begins, and this latter part I liked most in

the proofs. It is a magnificent essay. I doubt slightly about some

assertions, or rather should have liked more facts--as, for instance, in

regard to species varying most on the confines of their range. Naturally

I doubt a little his remarks about divergence (87/5. "Variation is

effected by graduated changes; and the tendency of varieties, both in

nature and under cultivation, when further varying, is rather to depart

more and more widely from the original type than to revert to it." On

the margin Darwin wrote: "Without selection doubtful" (loc. cit., page

viii).), and about domestic races being produced under nature without

selection. It would take much to persuade me that a Pouter Pigeon, or

a Carrier, etc., could have been produced by the mere laws of variation

without long continued selection, though each little enlargement of crop

and beak are due to variation. I demur greatly to his comparison of the

products of sinking and rising islands (87/6. "I venture to anticipate

that a study of the vegetation of the islands with reference to

the peculiarities of the generic types on the one hand, and of the

geological conditions (whether as rising or sinking) on the other,

may, in the present state of our knowledge, advance other subjects of

distribution and variation considerably" (loc. cit., page xv).); in the

Indian Ocean he compares exclusively many rising volcanic and sinking

coral islands. The latter have a most peculiar soil, and are excessively

small in area, and are tenanted by very few species; moreover, such low

coral islands have probably been often, during their subsidence, utterly

submerged, and restocked by plants from other islands. In the Pacific

Ocean the floras of all the best cases are unknown. The comparison ought

to have been exclusively between rising and fringed volcanic islands,

and sinking and encircled volcanic islands. I have read Naudin (87/7.

Naudin, "Revue Horticole," 1852?.), and Hooker agrees that he does not

even touch on my views.

LETTER 88. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. [1859 or 1860.]

I have had another talk with Bentham, who is greatly agitated by your

book: evidently the stern, keen intellect is aroused, and he finds that

it is too late to halt between two opinions. How it will go we shall

see. I am intensely interested in what we shall come to, and never

broach the subject to him. I finished the geological evidence chapters

yesterday; they are very fine and very striking, but I cannot see they

are such forcible objections as you still hold them to be. I would say

that you still in your secret soul underrate the imperfection of the

Geological Record, though no language can be stronger or arguments

fairer and sounder against it. Of course I am influenced by Botany, and

the conviction that we have not in a fossilised condition a fraction of

the plants that have existed, and that not a fraction of those we have

are recognisable specifically. I never saw so clearly put the fact that

it is not intermediates between existing species we want, but between

these and the unknown tertium quid.

You certainly make a hobby of Natural Selection, and probably ride it

too hard; that is a necessity of your case. If the improvement of

the creation-by-variation doctrine is conceivable, it will be by

unburthening your theory of Natural Selection, which at first sight

seems overstrained--i.e., to account for too much. I think, too, that

some of your difficulties which you override by Natural Selection may

give way before other explanations. But, oh Lord! how little we do

know and have known to be so advanced in knowledge by one theory. If we

thought ourselves knowing dogs before you revealed Natural Selection,

what d--d ignorant ones we must surely be now we do know that law.

I hear you may be at the Club on Thursday. I hope so. Huxley will not be

there, so do not come on that ground.

LETTER 89. TO T.H. HUXLEY. January 1st [1860].

I write one line merely to thank you for your pleasant note, and to say

that I will keep your secret. I will shake my head as mysteriously

as Lord Burleigh. Several persons have asked me who wrote that "most

remarkable article" in the "Times." (89/1. The "Times," December 26th,

1859, page 8. The opening paragraphs were by one of the staff of

the "Times." See "Life and Letters," II., page 255, for Mr. Huxley's

interesting account of his share in the matter.) As a cat may look at a

king, so I have said that I strongly suspected you. X was so sharp that

the first sentence revealed the authorship. The Z's (God save the

mark) thought it was Owen's! You may rely on it that it has made a deep

impression, and I am heartily glad that the subject and I owe you

this further obligation. But for God's sake, take care of your health;

remember that the brain takes years to rest, whilst the muscles take

only hours. There is poor Dana, to whom I used to preach by letter,

writes to me that my prophecies are come true: he is in Florence quite

done up, can read nothing and write nothing, and cannot talk for half an

hour. I noticed the "naughty sentence" (89/2. Mr. Huxley, after speaking

of the rudimental teeth of the whale, of rudimental jaws in insects

which never bite, and rudimental eyes in blind animals, goes on: "And

we would remind those who, ignorant of the facts, must be moved by

authority, that no one has asserted the incompetence of the doctrine

of final causes, in its application to physiology and anatomy, more

strongly than our own eminent anatomist, Professor Owen, who, speaking

of such cases, says ("On the Nature of Limbs," pages 39, 40), 'I think

it will be obvious that the principle of final adaptations fails to

satisfy all the conditions of the problem.'"--"The Times," December

26th, 1859.) about Owen, though my wife saw its bearing first. Farewell

you best and worst of men!

That sentence about the bird and the fish dinners charmed us. Lyell

wrote to me--style like yours.

Have you seen the slashing article of December 26th in the "Daily News,"

against my stealing from my "master," the author of the "Vestiges?"

LETTER 90. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. [Undated]

How I should like to know whether Milne Edwards has read the copy which

I sent him, and whether he thinks I have made a pretty good case on

our side of the question. There is no naturalist in the world for whose

opinion I have so profound a respect. Of course I am not so silly as to

expect to change his opinion.

LETTER 91. TO C. LYELL.

(91/1. The date of this letter is doubtful; but as it evidently refers

to the 2nd edition of the "Origin," which appeared on January 7th, 1860,

we believe that December 9th, 1859, is right. The letter of Sedgwick's

is doubtless that given in the "Life and Letters," II., page 247; it is

there dated December 24th, 1859, but from other evidence it was probably

written on November 24th)

[December?] 9th [1859].

I send Sedgwick's letter; it is terribly muddled, and really the first

page seems almost childish.

I am sadly over-worked, so will not write to you. I have worked in

a number of your invaluable corrections--indeed, all as far as time

permits. I infer from a letter from Huxley that Ramsay (91/2. See a

letter to Huxley, November 27th, 1859, "Life and Letters," II., page

282.) is a convert, and I am extremely glad to get pure geologists, as

they will be very few. Many thanks for your very pleasant note. What

pleasure you have given me. I believe I should have been miserable had

it not been for you and a few others, for I hear threatening of attacks

which I daresay will be severe enough. But I am sure that I can now bear

them.

LETTER 92. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(92/1. The point here discussed is one to which Mr. Huxley attached

great, in our opinion too great, importance.)

Down, January 11th [1860?].

I fully agree that the difficulty is great, and might be made much of by

a mere advocate. Will you oblige me by reading again slowly from pages

267 to 272. (92/2. The reference is to the "Origin," Edition I.: the

section on "The Fertility of Varieties when crossed, and of their

Mongrel Offspring" occupies pages 267-72.) I may add to what is there

said, that it seems to me quite hopeless to attempt to explain why

varieties are not sterile, until we know the precise cause of sterility

in species.

Reflect for a moment on how small and on what very peculiar causes the

unequal reciprocity of fertility in the same two species must depend.

Reflect on the curious case of species more fertile with foreign pollen

than their own. Reflect on many cases which could be given, and shall

be given in my larger book (independently of hybridity) of very slight

changes of conditions causing one species to be quite sterile and not

affecting a closely allied species. How profoundly ignorant we are on

the intimate relation between conditions of life and impaired fertility

in pure species!

The only point which I might add to my short discussion on this subject,

is that I think it probable that the want of adaptation to uniform

conditions of life in our domestic varieties has played an important

part in preventing their acquiring sterility when crossed. For the want

of uniformity, and changes in the conditions of life, seem the

only cause of the elimination of sterility (when crossed) under

domestication. (92/3. The meaning which we attach to this obscure

sentence is as follows: Species in a state of nature are closely adapted

to definite conditions of life, so that the sexual constitution of

species A is attuned, as it were, to a condition different from that to

which B is attuned, and this leads to sterility. But domestic varieties

are not strictly adapted by Natural Selection to definite conditions,

and thus have less specialised sexual constitutions.) This elimination,

though admitted by many authors, rests on very slight evidence, yet I

think is very probably true, as may be inferred from the case of

dogs. Under nature it seems improbable that the differences in the

reproductive constitution, on which the sterility of any two species

when crossed depends, can be acquired directly by Natural Selection; for

it is of no advantage to the species. Such differences in reproductive

constitution must stand in correlation with some other differences; but

how impossible to conjecture what these are! Reflect on the case of

the variations of Verbascum, which differ in no other respect whatever

besides the fluctuating element of the colour of the flower, and yet it

is impossible to resist Gartner's evidence, that this difference in the

colour does affect the mutual fertility of the varieties.

The whole case seems to me far too mysterious to rest (92/4. The word

"rest" seems to be used in place of "to serve as a foundation for.") a

valid attack on the theory of modification of species, though, as you

say, it offers excellent ground for a mere advocate.

I am surprised, considering how ignorant we are on very many points,

[that] more weak parts in my book have not as yet been pointed out to

me. No doubt many will be. H.C. Watson founds his objection in MS. on

there being no limit to infinite diversification of species: I have

answered this, I think, satisfactorily, and have sent attack and answer

to Lyell and Hooker. If this seems to you a good objection, I would

send papers to you. Andrew Murray "disposes of" the whole theory by an

ingenious difficulty from the distribution of blind cave insects (92/5.

See "Life and Letters, Volume II., page 265. The reference here is to

Murray's address before the Botanical Society, Edinburgh. Mr. Darwin

seems to have read Murray's views only in a separate copy reprinted from

the "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." There is some confusion about the date of the

paper; the separate copy is dated January 16th, while in the volume of

the "Proc. R. Soc." it is February 20th. In the "Life and Letters," II.,

page 261 it is erroneously stated that these are two different papers.);

but it can, I think, be fairly answered.

LETTER 93. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, [February] 2nd [1860].

I have had this morning a letter from old Bronn (93/1. See "Life and

Letters, II., page 277.) (who, to my astonishment, seems slightly

staggered by Natural Selection), and he says a publisher in Stuttgart is

willing to publish a translation, and that he, Bronn, will to a certain

extent superintend. Have you written to Kolliker? if not, perhaps I had

better close with this proposal--what do you think? If you have written,

I must wait, and in this case will you kindly let me hear as soon as you

hear from Kolliker?

My poor dear friend, you will curse the day when you took up the

"general agency" line; but really after this I will not give you any

more trouble.

Do not forget the three tickets for us for your lecture, and the ticket

for Baily, the poulterer.

Old Bronn has published in the "Year-book for Mineralogy" a notice of

the "Origin" (93/2. "Neues Jahrb. fur Min." 1860, page 112.); and says

he has himself published elsewhere a foreboding of the theory!

LETTER 94. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 14th [1860].

I succeeded in persuading myself for twenty-four hours that Huxley's

lecture was a success. (94/1. At the Royal Institution. See "Life and

Letters," II., page 282.) Parts were eloquent and good, and all very

bold; and I heard strangers say, "What a good lecture!" I told Huxley

so; but I demurred much to the time wasted in introductory remarks,

especially to his making it appear that sterility was a clear and

manifest distinction of species, and to his not having even alluded to

the more important parts of the subject. He said that he had much more

written out, but time failed. After conversation with others and more

reflection, I must confess that as an exposition of the doctrine the

lecture seems to me an entire failure. I thank God I did not think so

when I saw Huxley; for he spoke so kindly and magnificently of me, that

I could hardly have endured to say what I now think. He gave no just

idea of Natural Selection. I have always looked at the doctrine of

Natural Selection as an hypothesis, which, if it explained several

large classes of facts, would deserve to be ranked as a theory deserving

acceptance; and this, of course, is my own opinion. But, as Huxley

has never alluded to my explanation of classification, morphology,

embryology, etc., I thought he was thoroughly dissatisfied with all this

part of my book. But to my joy I find it is not so, and that he agrees

with my manner of looking at the subject; only that he rates higher than

I do the necessity of Natural Selection being shown to be a vera

causa always in action. He tells me he is writing a long review in the

"Westminster." It was really provoking how he wasted time over the idea

of a species as exemplified in the horse, and over Sir J. Hall's old

experiment on marble. Murchison was very civil to me over my book after

the lecture, in which he was disappointed. I have quite made up my mind

to a savage onslaught; but with Lyell, you, and Huxley, I feel confident

we are right, and in the long run shall prevail. I do not think Asa Gray

has quite done you justice in the beginning of the review of me. (94/2.

"Review of Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species by means of Natural

Selection," by "A.G." ("Amer. Jour. Sci." Volume XXIX., page 153, 1860).

In a letter to Asa Gray on February 18th, 1860, Darwin writes: "Your

review seems to me admirable; by far the best which I have read." ("Life

and Letters," II., 1887, page 286.) The review seemed to me very good,

but I read it very hastily.

LETTER 95. TO C. LYELL. Down, [February] 18th [1860].

I send by this post Asa Gray, which seems to me very good, with the

stamp of originality on it. Also Bronn's "Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie."

(95/1. See Letter 93.)

The united intellect of my family has vainly tried to make it out. I

never tried such confoundedly hard german; nor does it seem worth the

labour. He sticks to Priestley's Green Matter, and seems to think that

till it can be shown how life arises it is no good showing how the forms

of life arise. This seems to me about as logical (comparing very great

things with little) as to say it was no use in Newton showing the laws

of attraction of gravity and the consequent movement of the planets,

because he could not show what the attraction of gravity is.

The expression "Wahl der Lebens-Weise" (95/2. "Die fruchtbarste und

allgemeinste Ursache der Varietaten-Bildung ist jedoch die Wahl

der Lebens-Weise" (loc. cit., page 112).) makes me doubt whether B.

understands what I mean by Natural Selection, as I have told him. He

says (if I understand him) that you ought to be on the same side with

me.

P.S. Sunday afternoon.--I have kept back this to thank you for your

letter, with much news, received this morning. My conscience is uneasy

at the time you waste in amusing and interesting me. I was very

curious to hear about Phillips. The review in the "Annals" is, as I was

convinced, by Wollaston, for I have had a very cordial letter from him

this morning. (95/3. A bibliographical Notice "On the Origin of Species

by means of Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races

in the Struggle for Life." ("Annals and Mag." Volume V., pages 132-43,

1860). The notice is not signed. Referring to the article, in a

letter to Lyell, February 15th, 1860, Darwin writes: "I am perfectly

convinced...that the review in the "Annals" is by Wollaston; no one else

in the world would have used so many parentheses" ("Life and Letters,"

II., page 284).)

I send by this post an attack in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" by Harvey

(a first-rate botanist, as you probably know). (95/4. In the "Gardeners'

Chronicle" of February 18th, 1860, W.H. Harvey described a case of

monstrosity in Begonia frigida, which he argued was hostile to the

theory of Natural Selection. The passage about Harvey's attack was

published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 275.) It seems to me

rather strange; he assumes the permanence of monsters, whereas monsters

are generally sterile, and not often inheritable. But grant his case,

it comes [to this], that I have been too cautious in not admitting great

and sudden variations. Here again comes in the mischief of my abstract.

In fuller MS. I have discussed the parallel case of a normal fish like a

monstrous gold-fish.

I end my discussion by doubting, because all cases of monstrosities

which resemble normal structures which I could find were not in allied

groups. Trees like Aspicarpa (95/5. Aspicarpa, an American genus of

Malpighiaceae, is quoted in the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 367) as an

illustration of Linnaeus' aphorism that the characters do not give

the genus, but the genus gives the characters. During several years'

cultivation in France Aspicarpa produced only degraded flowers, which

differed in many of the most important points of structure from the

proper type of the order; but it was recognised by M. Richard that the

genus should be retained among the Malpighiaceae. "This case," adds

Darwin, "well illustrates the spirit of our classification."), with

flowers of two kinds (in the "Origin"), led me also to speculate on the

same subject; but I could find only one doubtfully analogous case of

species having flowers like the degraded or monstrous flowers. Harvey

does not see that if only a few (as he supposes) of the seedlings

inherited being monstrosities, Natural Selection would be necessary

to select and preserve them. You had better return the "Gardeners'

Chronicle," etc., to my brother's. The case of Begonia (95/6. Harvey's

criticism was answered by Sir J.D. Hooker in the following number of the

"Gardeners' Chronicle" (February 25th, 1860, page 170).) in itself is

very curious; I am tempted to answer the notice, but I will refrain, for

there would be no end to answers.

With respect to your objection of a multitude of still living simple

forms, I have not discussed it anywhere in the "Origin," though I have

often thought it over. What you say about progress being only occasional

and retrogression not uncommon, I agree to; only that in the animal

kingdom I greatly doubt about retrogression being common. I have always

put it to myself--What advantage can we see in an infusory animal, or an

intestinal worm, or coral polypus, or earthworm being highly developed?

If no advantage, they would not become highly developed: not but what

all these animals have very complex structures (except infusoria), and

they may well be higher than the animals which occupied similar places

in the economy of nature before the Silurian epoch. There is a blind

snake with the appearances and, in some respects, habits of earthworms;

but this blind snake does not tend, as far as we can see, to replace and

drive out worms. I think I must in a future edition discuss a few more

such points, and will introduce this and H.C. Watson's objection about

the infinite number of species and the general rise in organisation. But

there is a directly opposite objection to yours which is very difficult

to answer--viz. how at the first start of life, when there were only

the simplest organisms, how did any complication of organisation profit

them? I can only answer that we have not facts enough to guide any

speculation on the subject.

With respect to Lepidosiren, Ganoid fishes, perhaps Ornithorhynchus, I

suspect, as stated in the "Origin," (95/7. "Origin of Species" (Edition

VI.), page 83.), that they have been preserved, from inhabiting

fresh-water and isolated parts of the world, in which there has been

less competition and less rapid progress in Natural Selection, owing

to the fewness of individuals which can inhabit small areas; and where

there are few individuals variation at most must be slower. There are

several allusions to this notion in the "Origin," as under Amblyopsis,

the blind cave-fish (95/8. "Origin," page 112.), and under Heer (95/9.

"Origin," page 83.) about Madeira plants resembling the fossil and

extinct plants of Europe.

LETTER 96. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, March 5th [1860?].

I am much obliged for your long and interesting letter. You have indeed

good right to speak confidently about the habits of wild birds and

animals; for I should think no one beside yourself has ever sported in

Spitzbergen and Southern Africa. It is very curious and interesting

that you should have arrived at the conclusion that so-called "Natural

Selection" had been efficient in giving their peculiar colours to our

grouse. I shall probably use your authority on the similar habits of our

grouse and the Norwegian species.

I am particularly obliged for your very curious fact of the effect

produced by the introduction of the lowland grouse on the wildness of

the grouse in your neighbourhood. It is a very striking instance of what

crossing will do in affecting the character of a breed. Have you ever

seen it stated in any sporting work that game has become wilder in this

country? I wish I could get any sort of proof of the fact, for your

explanation seems to me equally ingenious and probable. I have myself

witnessed in South America a nearly parallel [case] with that which

you mention in regard to the reindeer in Spitzbergen, with the Cervus

campestris of La Plata. It feared neither man nor the sound of shot of

a rifle, but was terrified at the sight of a man on horseback; every one

in that country always riding. As you are so great a sportsman, perhaps

you will kindly look to one very trifling point for me, as my neighbours

here think it too absurd to notice--namely, whether the feet of birds

are dirty, whether a few grains of dirt do not adhere occasionally to

their feet. I especially want to know how this is in the case of birds

like herons and waders, which stalk in the mud. You will guess that this

relates to dispersal of seeds, which is one of my greatest difficulties.

My health is very indifferent, and I am seldom able to attend the

scientific meetings, but I sincerely hope that I may some time have the

pleasure of meeting you.

Pray accept my cordial thanks for your very kind letter.

LETTER 97. TO G.H.K. THWAITES. Down, March 21st [1860].

I thank you very sincerely for your letter, and am much pleased that you

go a little way with me. You will think it presumptuous, but I am well

convinced from my own mental experience that if you keep the subject at

all before your mind you will ultimately go further. The present volume

is a mere abstract, and there are great omissions. One main one, which

I have rectified in the foreign editions, is an explanation (which has

satisfied Lyell, who made the same objection with you) why many forms do

not progress or advance (and I quite agree about some retrograding). I

have also a MS. discussion on beauty; but do you really suppose that for

instance Diatomaceae were created beautiful that man, after millions of

generations, should admire them through the microscope? (97/1. Thwaites

(1811-82) published several papers on the Diatomaceae ("On Conjugation

in the Diatomaceae," "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XX., 1847, pages

9-11, 343-4; "Further Observations on the Diatomaceae," loc. cit., 1848,

page 161). See "Life and Letters" II., page 292.) I should attribute

most of such structures to quite unknown laws of growth; and mere

repetition of parts is to our eyes one main element of beauty. When any

structure is of use (and I can show what curiously minute particulars

are often of highest use), I can see with my prejudiced eyes no limit to

the perfection of the coadaptations which could be effected by Natural

Selection. I rather doubt whether you see how far, as it seems to me,

the argument for homology and embryology may be carried. I do not look

at this as mere analogy. I would as soon believe that fossil shells were

mere mockeries of real shells as that the same bones in the foot of a

dog and wing of a bat, or the similar embryo of mammal and bird, had

not a direct signification, and that the signification can be unity of

descent or nothing. But I venture to repeat how much pleased I am that

you go some little way with me. I find a number of naturalists do

the same, and as their halting-places are various, and I must think

arbitrary, I believe they will all go further. As for changing at once

one's opinion, I would not value the opinion of a man who could do so;

it must be a slow process. (97/2. Darwin wrote to Woodward in regard to

the "Origin": "It may be a vain and silly thing to say, but I believe

my book must be read twice carefully to be fully understood. You will

perhaps think it by no means worth the labour.") Thank you for telling

me about the Lantana (97/3. An exotic species of Lantana (Verbenaceae)

grows vigorously in Ceylon, and is described as frequently making its

appearance after the firing of the low-country forests (see H.H.W.

Pearson, "The Botany of the Ceylon Patanas," "Journal Linn. Soc." Volume

XXXIV., page 317, 1899). No doubt Thwaites' letter to Darwin referred

to the spreading of the introduced Lantana, comparable to that of the

cardoon in La Plata and of other plants mentioned by Darwin in the

"Origin of Species" (Edition VI., page 51).), and I should at any time

be most grateful for any information which you think would be of use

to me. I hope that you will publish a list of all naturalised plants

in Ceylon, as far as known, carefully distinguishing those confined to

cultivated soils alone. I feel sure that this most important subject has

been greatly undervalued.

LETTER 98. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(98/1. The reference here is to the review on the "Origin of Species"

generally believed to be by the late Sir R. Owen, and published in

the April number of the "Edinburgh Review," 1860. Owen's biographer

is silent on the subject, and prints, without comment, the following

passage in an undated letter from Sedgwick to Owen: "Do you know who was

the author of the article in the "Edinburgh" on the subject of Darwin's

theory? On the whole, I think it very good. I once suspected that you

must have had a hand in it, and I then abandoned that thought. I have

not read it with any care" (Owen's "Life," Volume II., page 96).

April 9th [1860].

I never saw such an amount of misrepresentation. At page 530 (98/2.

"Lasting and fruitful conclusions have, indeed, hitherto been based

only on the possession of knowledge; now we are called upon to accept an

hypothesis on the plea of want of knowledge. The geological record,

it is averred, is so imperfect!"--"Edinburgh Review," CXI., 1860, page

530.) he says we are called on to accept the hypothesis on the plea of

ignorance, whereas I think I could not have made it clearer that I admit

the imperfection of the Geological Record as a great difficulty.

The quotation (98/3. "We are appealed to, or at least 'the young and

rising naturalists with plastic minds,* [On the Nature of the Limbs,

page 482] are adjured." It will be seen that the inverted comma after

"naturalists" is omitted; the asterisk referring, in a footnote (here

placed in square brackets), to page 482 of the "Origin," seems to

have been incorrectly assumed by Mr. Darwin to show the close of the

quotation.--Ibid., page 512.) on page 512 of the "Review" about "young

and rising naturalists with plastic minds," attributed to "nature of

limbs," is a false quotation, as I do not use the words "plastic minds."

At page 501 (98/4. The passage ("Origin," Edition I., page 483) begins,

"But do they really believe...," and shows clearly that the author

considers such a belief all but impossible.) the quotation is garbled,

for I only ask whether naturalists believe about elemental atoms

flashing, etc., and he changes it into that I state that they do

believe.

At page 500 (98/5. "All who have brought the transmutation speculation

to the test of observed facts and ascertained powers in organic life,

and have published the results, usually adverse to such speculations,

are set down by Mr. Darwin as 'curiously illustrating the blindness of

preconceived opinion.'" The passage in the "Origin," page 482, begins

by expressing surprise at the point of view of some naturalists: "They

admit that a multitude of forms, which till lately they themselves

thought were special creations,...have been produced by variation, but

they refuse to extend the same view to other and very slightly

different forms...They admit variation as a vera causa in one case, they

arbitrarily reject it in another, without assigning any distinction in

the two cases. The day will come when this will be given as a curious

illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion.") it is very

false to say that I imply by "blindness of preconceived opinion" the

simple belief of creation. And so on in other cases. But I beg pardon

for troubling you. I am heartily sorry that in your unselfish endeavours

to spread what you believe to be truth, you should have incurred so

brutal an attack. (98/6. The "Edinburgh" Reviewer, referring to Huxley's

Royal Institution Lecture given February 10th, 1860, "On Species and

Races and their Origin," says (page 521), "We gazed with amazement at

the audacity of the dispenser of the hour's intellectual amusement,

who, availing himself of the technical ignorance of the majority of his

auditors, sought to blind them as to the frail foundations of 'natural

selection' by such illustrations as the subjoined": And then follows

a critique of the lecturer's comparison of the supposed descent of

the horse from the Palaeothere with that of various kinds of domestic

pigeons from the Rock-pigeon.) And now I will not think any more of this

false and malignant attack.

LETTER 99. TO MAXWELL MASTERS. Down, April 13th [1860].

I thank you very sincerely for your two kind notes. The next time you

write to your father I beg you to give him from me my best thanks, but I

am sorry that he should have had the trouble of writing when ill. I have

been much interested by the facts given by him. If you think he would

in the least care to hear the result of an artificial cross of two sweet

peas, you can send the enclosed; if it will only trouble him, tear it

up. There seems to be so much parallelism in the kind of variation from

my experiment, which was certainly a cross, and what Mr. Masters has

observed, that I cannot help suspecting that his peas were crossed by

bees, which I have seen well dusted with the pollen of the sweet pea;

but then I wish this, and how hard it is to prevent one's wish biassing

one's judgment!

I was struck with your remark about the Compositae, etc. I do not see

that it bears much against me, and whether it does or not is of

course of not the slightest importance. Although I fully agree that

no definition can be drawn between monstrosities and slight variations

(such as my theory requires), yet I suspect there is some distinction.

Some facts lead me to think that monstrosities supervene generally at

an early age; and after attending to the subject I have great doubts

whether species in a state of nature ever become modified by such sudden

jumps as would result from the Natural Selection of monstrosities. You

cannot do me a greater service than by pointing out errors. I sincerely

hope that your work on monstrosities (99/1. "Vegetable Teratology,"

London, 1869 (Ray Soc.).) will soon appear, for I am sure it will be

highly instructive.

Now for your notes, for which let me again thank you.

1. Your conclusion about parts developed (99/2. See "Origin of Species,"

Edition I., page 153, on the variability of parts "developed in an

extraordinary manner in any one species, compared with the other species

of the same genus." See "Life and Letters," II., pages 97, 98, also

Letter 33.) not being extra variable agrees with Hooker's. You will see

that I have stated that the rule apparently does not hold with plants,

though it ought, if true, to hold good with them.

2. I cannot now remember in what work I saw the statement about Peloria

affecting the axis, but I know it was one which I thought might be

trusted. I consulted also Dr. Falconer, and I think that he agreed to

the truth of it; but I cannot now tell where to look for my notes. I had

been much struck with finding a Laburnum tree with the terminal

flowers alone in each raceme peloric, though not perfectly regular. The

Pelargonium case in the "Origin" seems to point in the same direction.

(99/3. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 145.)

3. Thanks for the correction about furze: I found the seedlings just

sprouting, and was so much surprised and their appearance that I sent

them to Hooker; but I never plainly asked myself whether they were

cotyledons or first leaves. (99/4. The trifoliate leaves of furze

seedlings are not cotyledons, but early leaves: see Lubbock's

"Seedlings," I., page 410.)

4. That is a curious fact about the seeds of the furze, the more curious

as I found with Leguminosae that immersion in plain cold water for a

very few days killed some kinds.

If at any time anything should occur to you illustrating or opposing my

notions, and you have leisure to inform me, I should be truly grateful,

for I can plainly see that you have wealth of knowledge.

With respect to advancement or retrogression in organisation in

monstrosities of the Compositae, etc., do you not find it very difficult

to define which is which?

Anyhow, most botanists seem to differ as widely as possible on this

head.

LETTER 100. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 8th [1860].

Very many thanks about the Elodea, which case interests me much. I

wrote to Mr. Marshall (100/1. W. Marshall was the author of "Anacharis

alsinastrum, a new water-weed": four letters to the "Cambridge

Independent Press," reprinted as a pamphlet, 1852.) at Ely, and in due

time he says he will send me whatever information he can procure.

Owen is indeed very spiteful. (100/2. Owen was believed to be the author

of the article in the "Edinburgh Review," April, 1860. See Letter 98.)

He misrepresents and alters what I say very unfairly. But I think his

conduct towards Hooker most ungenerous: viz., to allude to his essay

(Australian Flora), and not to notice the magnificent results on

geographical distribution. The Londoners say he is mad with envy because

my book has been talked about; what a strange man to be envious of a

naturalist like myself, immeasurably his inferior! From one conversation

with him I really suspect he goes at the bottom of his hidden soul as

far as I do.

I wonder whether Sedgwick noticed in the "Edinburgh Review" about

the "Sacerdotal revilers,"--so the revilers are tearing each other

to pieces. I suppose Sedgwick will be very fierce against me at the

Philosophical Society. (100/3. The meeting of the "Cambridge Phil.

Soc." was held on May 7th, 1860, and fully reported in the "Cambridge

Chronicle," May 19th. Sedgwick is reported to have said that "Darwin's

theory is not inductive--is not based on a series of acknowledged

facts, leading to a general conclusion evolved, logically out of the

facts...The only facts he pretends to adduce, as true elements of

proof, are the varieties produced by domestication and the artifices

of crossbreeding." Sedgwick went on to speak of the vexatious

multiplication of supposed species, and adds, "In this respect Darwin's

theory may help to simplify our classifications, and thereby do good

service to modern science. But he has not undermined any grand truth

in the constancy of natural laws, and the continuity of true species.")

Judging from his notice in the "Spectator," (100/4. March 24th, 1860;

see "Life and Letters," II., page 297.) he will misrepresent me, but it

will certainly be unintentionally done. In a letter to me, and in

the above notice, he talks much about my departing from the spirit of

inductive philosophy. I wish, if you ever talk on the subject to him,

you would ask him whether it was not allowable (and a great step) to

invent the undulatory theory of light, i.e. hypothetical undulations,

in a hypothetical substance, the ether. And if this be so, why may I not

invent the hypothesis of Natural Selection (which from the analogy

of domestic productions, and from what we know of the struggle for

existence and of the variability of organic beings, is, in some very

slight degree, in itself probable) and try whether this hypothesis of

Natural Selection does not explain (as I think it does) a large

number of facts in geographical distribution--geological succession,

classification, morphology, embryology, etc. I should really much like

to know why such an hypothesis as the undulation of the ether may be

invented, and why I may not invent (not that I did invent it, for I

was led to it by studying domestic varieties) any hypothesis, such as

Natural Selection.

Pray forgive me and my pen for running away with me, and scribbling on

at such length.

I can perfectly understand Sedgwick (100/5. See "Life and Letters," II.,

page 247; the letter is there dated December 24th, but must, we think,

have been written in November at latest.) or any one saying that Natural

Selection does not explain large classes of facts; but that is very

different from saying that I depart from right principles of scientific

investigation.

LETTER 101. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 14th [1860].

I have been greatly interested by your letter to Hooker, and I must

thank you from my heart for so generously defending me, as far as you

could, against my powerful attackers. Nothing which persons say hurts

me for long, for I have an entire conviction that I have not been

influenced by bad feelings in the conclusions at which I have arrived.

Nor have I published my conclusions without long deliberation, and they

were arrived at after far more study than the public will ever know of,

or believe in. I am certain to have erred in many points, but I do not

believe so much as Sedgwick and Co. think.

Is there any Abstract or Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical

Society published? (101/1. Henslow's remarks are not given in the

above-mentioned report in the "Cambridge Chronicle.") If so, and you

could get me a copy, I should like to have one.

Believe me, my dear Henslow, I feel grateful to you on this occasion,

and for the multitude of kindnesses you have done me from my earliest

days at Cambridge.

LETTER 102. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 22nd [1860].

Hooker has sent me a letter of Thwaites (102/1. See Letter 97.), of

Ceylon, who makes exactly the same objections which you did at first

about the necessity of all forms advancing, and therefore the difficulty

of simple forms still existing. There was no worse omission than this in

my book, and I had the discussion all ready.

I am extremely glad to hear that you intend adding new arguments about

the imperfection of the Geological Record. I always feel this acutely,

and am surprised that such men as Ramsay and Jukes do not feel it more.

I quite agree on insufficient evidence about mummy wheat. (102/2. See

notes appended to a letter to Lyell, September 1843 (Botany).

When you can spare it, I should like (but out of mere curiosity) to see

Binney on Coal marine marshes.

I once made Hooker very savage by saying that I believed the Coal plants

grew in the sea, like mangroves. (102/3. See "Life and Letters," I.,

page 356.)

LETTER 103. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(103/1. This letter is of interest as containing a strong expression

upon the overwhelming importance of selection.)

Down [1860].

Many thanks for Harvey's letter (103/2. W.H. Harvey had been

corresponding with Sir J.D. Hooker on the "Origin of Species."), which

I will keep a little longer and then return. I will write to him and

try to make clear from analogy of domestic productions the part which I

believe selection has played. I have been reworking my pigeons and other

domestic animals, and I am sure that any one is right in saying that

selection is the efficient cause, though, as you truly say, variation

is the base of all. Why I do not believe so much as you do in physical

agencies is that I see in almost every organism (though far more

clearly in animals than in plants) adaptation, and this except in rare

instances, must, I should think, be due to selection.

Do not forget the Pyrola when in flower. (103/3. In a letter to Hooker,

May 22nd, 1860, Darwin wrote: "Have you Pyrola at Kew? if so, for

heaven's sake observe the curvature of the pistil towards the gangway to

the nectary." The fact of the stigma in insect-visited flowers being so

placed that the visitor must touch it on its way to the nectar, was a

point which early attracted Darwin's attention and strongly impressed

him.) My blessed little Scaevola has come into flower, and I will try

artificial fertilisation on it.

I have looked over Harvey's letter, and have assumed (I hope rightly)

that he could not object to knowing that you had forwarded it to me.

LETTER 104. TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 8th [1860].

I have to thank you for two notes, one through Hooker, and one with

some letters to be posted, which was done. I anticipated your request by

making a few remarks on Owen's review. (104/1. "The Edinburgh Review,"

April, 1860.) Hooker is so weary of reviews that I do not think you

will get any hints from him. I have lately had many more "kicks than

halfpence." A review in the last Dublin "Nat. Hist. Review" is the most

unfair thing which has appeared,--one mass of misrepresentation. It

is evidently by Haughton, the geologist, chemist and mathematician.

It shows immeasurable conceit and contempt of all who are not

mathematicians. He discusses bees' cells, and puts a series which I have

never alluded to, and wholly ignores the intermediate comb of Melipona,

which alone led me to my notions. The article is a curiosity of

unfairness and arrogance; but, as he sneers at Malthus, I am content,

for it is clear he cannot reason. He is a friend of Harvey, with whom

I have had some correspondence. Your article has clearly, as he admits,

influenced him. He admits to a certain extent Natural Selection, yet I

am sure does not understand me. It is strange that very few do, and I

am become quite convinced that I must be an extremely bad explainer. To

recur for a moment to Owen: he grossly misrepresents and is very unfair

to Huxley. You say that you think the article must be by a pupil of

Owen; but no one fact tells so strongly against Owen, considering his

former position at the College of Surgeons, as that he has never reared

one pupil or follower. In the number just out of "Fraser's Magazine"

(104/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 314.) there is an article or

review on Lamarck and me by W. Hopkins, the mathematician, who, like

Haughton, despises the reasoning power of all naturalists. Personally he

is extremely kind towards me; but he evidently in the following number

means to blow me into atoms. He does not in the least appreciate the

difference in my views and Lamarck's, as explaining adaptation, the

principle of divergence, the increase of dominant groups, and the almost

necessary extinction of the less dominant and smaller groups, etc.

LETTER 105. TO C. LYELL. Down, June 17th [1860].

One word more upon the Deification (105/1. "If we confound 'Variation'

or 'Natural Selection' with such creational laws, we deify secondary

causes or immeasurably exaggerate their influence" (Lyell, "The

Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks on Theories

on the Origin of Species by Variation," page 469, London, 1863). See

Letter 131.) of Natural Selection: attributing so much weight to it

does not exclude still more general laws, i.e. the ordering of the whole

universe. I have said that Natural Selection is to the structure of

organised beings what the human architect is to a building. The very

existence of the human architect shows the existence of more general

laws; but no one, in giving credit for a building to the human

architect, thinks it necessary to refer to the laws by which man has

appeared.

No astronomer, in showing how the movements of planets are due to

gravity, thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed

that the planets should pursue the courses which they pursue. I cannot

believe that there is a bit more interference by the Creator in the

construction of each species than in the course of the planets. It

is only owing to Paley and Co., I believe, that this more special

interference is thought necessary with living bodies. But we shall never

agree, so do not trouble yourself to answer.

I should think your remarks were very just about mathematicians not

being better enabled to judge of probabilities than other men of

common-sense.

I have just got more returns about the gestation of hounds. The

period differs at least from sixty-one to seventy-four days, just as I

expected.

I was thinking of sending the "Gardeners' Chronicle" to you, on account

of a paper by me on the fertilisation of orchids by insects (105/2.

"Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency." This article in

the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of June 9th, 1860, page 528, begins with a

request that observations should be made on the manner of fertilisation

in the bee-and in the fly-orchis.), as it involves a curious point, and

as you cared about my paper on kidney beans; but as you are so busy, I

will not.

LETTER 106. TO C. LYELL. Down [June?] 20th [1860].

I send Blyth (106/1. See Letter 27.); it is a dreadful handwriting; the

passage is on page 4. In a former note he told me he feared there was

hardly a chance of getting money for the Chinese expedition, and spoke

of your kindness.

Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I wonder at, admire,

and thank you for your patience in writing so much. I rather demur to

Deinosaurus not having "free will," as surely we have. I demur also

to your putting Huxley's "force and matter" in the same category with

Natural Selection. The latter may, of course, be quite a false view; but

surely it is not getting beyond our depth to first causes.

It is truly very remarkable that the gestation of hounds (106/2. In

a letter written to Lyell on June 25th, 1860, the following paragraph

occurs: "You need not believe one word of what I said about gestation

of dogs. Since writing to you I have had more correspondence with the

master of hounds, and I see his [record?] is worth nothing. It may,

of course, be correct, but cannot be trusted. I find also different

statements about the wolf: in fact, I am all abroad.") should vary so

much, while that of man does not. It may be from multiple origin. The

eggs from the Musk and the common duck take an intermediate period in

hatching; but I should rather look at it as one of the ten thousand

cases which we cannot explain--namely, when one part or function varies

in one species and not in another.

Hooker has told me nothing about his explanation of few Arctic forms; I

knew the fact before. I had speculated on what I presume, from what you

say, is his explanation (106/3. "Outlines of the Distribution of Arctic

Plants," J.D. Hooker, "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIII., page 251, 1862.

[read June 21st, 1860.] In this paper Hooker draws attention to the

exceptional character of the Greenland flora; but as regards the paucity

of its species and in its much greater resemblance to the floras of

Arctic Europe than to those of Arctic America, he considers it difficult

to account for these facts, "unless we admit Mr. Darwin's hypotheses"

(see "Origin," Edition VI., 1872, Chapter XII., page 330) of a southern

migration due to the cold of the glacial period and the subsequent

return of the northern types during the succeeding warmer period. Many

of the Greenland species, being confined to the peninsula, "would, as it

were, be driven into the sea--that is exterminated" (Hooker, op. cit.,

pages 253-4).); but there must have been at all times an Arctic region.

I found the speculation got too complex, as it seemed to me, to be worth

following out.

I have been doing some more interesting work with orchids. Talk of

adaptation in woodpeckers (106/4. "Can a more striking instance of

adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and

seizing insects in the chinks of the bark?" (Origin of Species," Edition

HAVE I., page 141).), some of the orchids beat it.

I showed the case to Elizabeth Wedgwood, and her remark was, "Now you

have upset your own book, for you won't persuade me that this could be

effected by Natural Selection."

LETTER 107. TO T.H. HUXLEY. July 20th [1860].

Many thanks for your pleasant letter. I agree to every word you say

about "Fraser" and the "Quarterly." (107/1. Bishop Wilberforce's review

of the "Origin" in the "Quarterly Review," July, 1860, was republished

in his "Collected Essays," 1874. See "Life and Letters, II., page 182,

and II., page 324, where some quotations from the review are given.

For Hopkins' review in "Fraser's Magazine," June, 1860, see "Life and

Letters," II., 314.) I have had some really admirable letters

from Hopkins. I do not suppose he has ever troubled his head about

geographical distribution, classification, morphologies, etc., and it

is only those who have that will feel any relief in having some sort of

rational explanation of such facts. Is it not grand the way in which the

Bishop asserts that all such facts are explained by ideas in God's mind?

The "Quarterly" is uncommonly clever; and I chuckled much at the way

my grandfather and self are quizzed. I could here and there see Owen's

hand. By the way, how comes it that you were not attacked? Does Owen

begin to find it more prudent to leave you alone? I would give five

shillings to know what tremendous blunder the Bishop made; for I see

that a page has been cancelled and a new page gummed in.

I am indeed most thoroughly contented with the progress of opinion.

From all that I hear from several quarters, it seems that Oxford did

the subject great good. (107/2. An account of the meeting of the British

Association at Oxford in 1860 is given in the "Life and Letters,"

II., page 320, and a fuller account in the one-volume "Life of Charles

Darwin," 1892, page 236. See also the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley,"

Volume I., page 179, and the amusing account of the meeting in Mr.

Tuckwell's "Reminiscences of Oxford," London, 1900, page 50.) It is of

enormous importance the showing the world that a few first-rate men

are not afraid of expressing their opinion. I see daily more and more

plainly that my unaided book would have done absolutely nothing. Asa

Gray is fighting admirably in the United States. He is thorough master

of the subject, which cannot be said by any means of such men as even

Hopkins.

I have been thinking over what you allude to about a natural history

review. (107/3. In the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I.,

page 209, some account of the founding of the "Natural History Review"

is given in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker of July 17th, 1860. On August

2nd Mr. Huxley added: "Darwin wrote me a very kind expostulation about

it, telling me I ought not to waste myself on other than original work.

In reply, however, I assured him that I MUST waste myself willy-nilly,

and that the 'Review' was only a save-all.") I suppose you mean really

a REVIEW and not journal for original communications in Natural History.

Of the latter there is now superabundance. With respect to a good

review, there can be no doubt of its value and utility; nevertheless, if

not too late, I hope you will consider deliberately before you decide.

Remember what a deal of work you have on your shoulders, and though you

can do much, yet there is a limit to even the hardest worker's power of

working. I should deeply regret to see you sacrificing much time which

could be given to original research. I fear, to one who can review as

well as you do, there would be the same temptation to waste time, as

there notoriously is for those who can speak well.

A review is only temporary; your work should be perennial. I know well

that you may say that unless good men will review there will be no good

reviews. And this is true. Would you not do more good by an occasional

review in some well-established review, than by giving up much time

to the editing, or largely aiding, if not editing, a review which from

being confined to one subject would not have a very large circulation?

But I must return to the chief idea which strikes me--viz., that it

would lessen the amount of original and perennial work which you could

do. Reflect how few men there are in England who can do original work

in the several lines in which you are excellently fitted. Lyell, I

remember, on analogous grounds many years ago resolved he would write no

more reviews. I am an old slowcoach, and your scheme makes me tremble.

God knows in one sense I am about the last man in England who ought to

throw cold water on any review in which you would be concerned, as I

have so immensely profited by your labours in this line.

With respect to reviewing myself, I never tried: any work of that kind

stops me doing anything else, as I cannot possibly work at odds and

ends of time. I have, moreover, an insane hatred of stopping my regular

current of work. I have now materials for a little paper or two, but I

know I shall never work them up. So I will not promise to help; though

not to help, if I could, would make me feel very ungrateful to you. You

have no idea during how short a time daily I am able to work. If I had

any regular duties, like you and Hooker, I should do absolutely nothing

in science.

I am heartily glad to hear that you are better; but how such labour as

volunteer-soldiering (all honour to you) does not kill you, I cannot

understand.

For God's sake remember that your field of labour is original research

in the highest and most difficult branches of Natural History. Not that

I wish to underrate the importance of clever and solid reviews.

LETTER 108. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Sudbrook Park, Richmond, Thursday [July,

1860].

I must send you a line to say what a good fellow you are to send me so

long an account of the Oxford doings. I have read it twice, and sent

it to my wife, and when I get home shall read it again: it has so much

interested me. But how durst you attack a live bishop in that fashion? I

am quite ashamed of you! Have you no reverence for fine lawn sleeves?

By Jove, you seem to have done it well. If any one were to ridicule any

belief of the bishop's, would he not blandly shrug his shoulders and be

inexpressibly shocked? I am very, very sorry to hear that you are not

well; but am not surprised after all your self-imposed labour. I hope

you will soon have an outing, and that will do you real good.

I am glad to hear about J. Lubbock, whom I hope to see soon, and

shall tell him what you have said. Have you read Hopkins in the last

"Fraser?"--well put, in good spirit, except soul discussion bad, as I

have told him; nothing actually new, takes the weak points alone, and

leaves out all other considerations.

I heard from Asa Gray yesterday; he goes on fighting like a Trojan.

God bless you!--get well, be idle, and always reverence a bishop.

LETTER 109. TO J.D. DANA. Down, July 30th [1860].

I received several weeks ago your note telling me that you could not

visit England, which I sincerely regretted, as I should most heartily

have liked to have made your personal acquaintance. You gave me an

improved, but not very good, account of your health. I should at some

time be grateful for a line to tell me how you are. We have had a

miserable summer, owing to a terribly long and severe illness of

my eldest girl, who improves slightly but is still in a precarious

condition. I have been able to do nothing in science of late. My kind

friend Asa Gray often writes to me and tells me of the warm discussions

on the "Origin of Species" in the United States. Whenever you are

strong enough to read it, I know you will be dead against me, but I know

equally well that your opposition will be liberal and philosophical.

And this is a good deal more than I can say of all my opponents in

this country. I have not yet seen Agassiz's attack (109/1. "Silliman's

Journal," July, 1860. A passage from Agassiz's review is given by Mr.

Huxley in Darwin's "Life and Letters," II., page 184.), but I hope to

find it at home when I return in a few days, for I have been for several

weeks away from home on my daughter's account. Prof. Silliman sent me an

extremely kind message by Asa Gray that your Journal would be open to

a reply by me. I cannot decide till I see it, but on principle I have

resolved to avoid answering anything, as it consumes much time,

often temper, and I have said my say in the "Origin." No one person

understands my views and has defended them so well as A. Gray, though he

does not by any means go all the way with me. There was much discussion

on the subject at the British Association at Oxford, and I had many

defenders, and my side seems (for I was not there) almost to have got

the best of the battle. Your correspondent and my neighbour, J. Lubbock,

goes on working at such spare time as he has. This is an egotistical

note, but I have not seen a naturalist for months. Most sincerely and

deeply do I hope that this note may find you almost recovered.

LETTER 110. TO W.H. HARVEY.

(110/1. See Letter 95, note. This letter was written in reply to a

long one from W.H. Harvey, dated August 24th, 1860. Harvey had already

published a serio-comic squib and a review, to which references are

given in the "Life and Letters," II., pages 314 and 375; but apparently

he had not before this time completed the reading of the "Origin.")

[August, 1860.]

I have read your long letter with much interest, and I thank you for

your great liberality in sending it me. But, on reflection, I do not

wish to attempt answering any part, except to you privately. Anything

said by myself in defence would have no weight; it is best to be

defended by others, or not at all. Parts of your letter seem to me, if

I may be permitted to say so, very acute and original, and I feel it

a great compliment your giving up so much time to my book. But, on the

whole, I am disappointed; not from your not concurring with me, for I

never expected that, and, indeed, in your remarks on Chapters XII. and

XIII., you go much further with me (though a little way) than I ever

anticipated, and am much pleased at the result. But on the whole I am

disappointed, because it seems to me that you do not understand what I

mean by Natural Selection, as shown at page 11 (110/2. Harvey speaks of

the perpetuation or selection of the useful, pre-supposing "a vigilant

and intelligent agent," which is very much like saying that an

intelligent agent is needed to see that the small stones pass through

the meshes of a sieve and the big ones remain behind.) of your letter

and by several of your remarks. As my book has failed to explain my

meaning, it would be hopeless to attempt it in a letter. You speak in

the early part of your letter, and at page 9, as if I had said that

Natural Selection was the sole agency of modification, whereas I

have over and over again, ad nauseam, directly said, and by order of

precedence implied (what seems to me obvious) that selection can do

nothing without previous variability (see pages 80, 108, 127, 468, 469,

etc.), "nothing can be effected unless favourable variations occur."

I consider Natural Selection as of such high importance, because it

accumulates successive variations in any profitable direction, and

thus adapts each new being to its complex conditions of life. The term

"selection," I see, deceives many persons, though I see no more reason

why it should than elective affinity, as used by the old chemists. If I

had to rewrite my book, I would use "natural preservation" or "naturally

preserved." I should think you would as soon take an emetic as re-read

any part of my book; but if you did, and were to erase selection and

selected, and insert preservation and preserved, possibly the subject

would be clearer. As you are not singular in misunderstanding my book, I

should long before this have concluded that my brains were in a haze had

I not found by published reviews, and especially by correspondence, that

Lyell, Hooker, Asa Gray, H.C. Watson, Huxley, and Carpenter, and many

others, perfectly comprehend what I mean. The upshot of your remarks at

page 11 is that my explanation, etc., and the whole doctrine of Natural

Selection, are mere empty words, signifying the "order of nature." As

the above-named clear-headed men, who do comprehend my views, all go a

certain length with me, and certainly do not think it all moonshine, I

should venture to suggest a little further reflection on your part. I do

not mean by this to imply that the opinion of these men is worth much as

showing that I am right, but merely as some evidence that I have

clearer ideas than you think, otherwise these same men must be even

more muddle-headed than I am; for they have no temptation to deceive

themselves. In the forthcoming September (110/3. "American Journal of

Science and Arts," September 1860, "Design versus Necessity," reprinted

in Asa Gray's "Darwiniana," 1876, page 62.) number of the "American

Journal of Science" there is an interesting and short theological

article (by Asa Gray), which gives incidentally with admirable clearness

the theory of Natural Selection, and therefore might be worth your

reading. I think that the theological part would interest you.

You object to all my illustrations. They are all necessarily

conjectural, and may be all false; but they were the best I could give.

The bear case (110/4. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 184. See

Letter 120.) has been well laughed at, and disingenuously distorted by

some into my saying that a bear could be converted into a whale. As it

offended persons, I struck it out in the second edition; but I still

maintain that there is no especial difficulty in a bear's mouth

being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits,--no more

difficulty than man has found in increasing the crop of the pigeon, by

continued selection, until it is literally as big as the whole rest of

the body. If this had not been known, how absurd it would have appeared

to say that the crop of a bird might be increased till it became like a

balloon!

With respect to the ostrich, I believe that the wings have been reduced,

and are not in course of development, because the whole structure of a

bird is essentially formed for flight; and the ostrich is essentially

a bird. You will see at page 182 of the "Origin" a somewhat analogous

discussion. At page 450 of the second edition I have pointed out the

essential distinction between a nascent and rudimentary organ. If you

prefer the more complex view that the progenitor of the ostrich lost its

wings, and that the present ostrich is regaining them, I have nothing to

say in opposition.

With respect to trees on islands, I collected some cases, but took the

main facts from Alph. De Candolle, and thought they might be trusted. My

explanation may be grossly wrong; but I am not convinced it is so, and I

do not see the full force of your argument of certain herbaceous orders

having been developed into trees in certain rare cases on continents.

The case seems to me to turn altogether on the question whether

generally herbaceous orders more frequently afford trees and bushes on

islands than on continents, relatively to their areas. (110/5. In

the "Origin," Edition I., page 392, the author points out that in the

presence of competing trees an herbaceous plant would have little chance

of becoming arborescent; but on an island, with only other herbaceous

plants as competitors, it might gain an advantage by overtopping its

fellows, and become tree-like. Harvey writes: "What you say (page

392) of insular trees belonging to orders which elsewhere include only

herbaceous species seems to me to be unsupported by sufficient evidence.

You cite no particular trees, and I may therefore be wrong in guessing

that the orders you allude to are Scrophularineae and Compositae; and

the insular trees the Antarctic Veronicas and the arborescent

Compositae of St. Helena, Tasmania, etc. But in South Africa Halleria

(Scrophularineae) is often as large and woody as an apple tree; and

there are several South African arborescent Compositae (Senecio and

Oldenburgia). Besides, in Tasmania at least, the arborescent Composites

are not found competing with herbaceous plants alone, and growing taller

and taller by overtopping them...; for the most arborescent of them all

(Eurybia argophylla, the Musk tree) grows...in Eucalyptus forests. And

so of the South African Halleria, which is a tree among trees. What the

conditions of the arborescent Gerania of the Sandwich Islands may be

I am unable to say...I cannot remember any other instances, nor can I

accept your explanation in any other of the cases I have cited.")

In page 4 of your letter you say you give up many book-species as

separate creations: I give up all, and you infer that our difference

is only in degree and not in kind. I dissent from this; for I give a

distinct reason how far I go in giving up species. I look at all forms,

which resemble each other homologically or embryologically, as certainly

descended from the same species.

You hit me hard and fairly (110/6. Harvey writes: "You ask--were all the

infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed,

or as full grown? To this it is sufficient to reply, was your primordial

organism, or were your four or five progenitors created as egg, seed,

or full grown? Neither theory attempts to solve this riddle, nor yet the

riddle of the Omphalos." The latter point, which Mr. Darwin refuses to

give up, is at page 483 of the "Origin," "and, in the case of mammals,

were they created bearing the false marks of nourishment from the

mother's womb?" In the third edition of the "Origin," 1861, page 517,

the author adds, after the last-cited passage: "Undoubtedly these same

questions cannot be answered by those who, under the present state of

science, believe in the creation of a few aboriginal forms, or of some

one form of life. In the sixth edition, probably with a view to the

umbilicus, he writes (page 423): "Undoubtedly some of these same

questions," etc., etc. From notes in Mr. Darwin's copy of the second

edition it is clear that the change in the third edition was chiefly

due to Harvey's letter. See Letter 115.) about my question (page 483,

"Origin") about creation of eggs or young, etc., (but not about mammals

with the mark of the umbilical cord), yet I still have an illogical sort

of feeling that there is less difficulty in imagining the creation of an

asexual cell, increasing by simple division.

Page 5 of your letter: I agree to every word about the antiquity of the

world, and never saw the case put by any one more strongly or more ably.

It makes, however, no more impression on me as an objection than does

the astronomer when he puts on a few hundred million miles to the

distance of the fixed stars. To compare very small things with great,

Lingula, etc., remaining nearly unaltered from the Silurian epoch to

the present day, is like the dovecote pigeons still being identical with

wild Rock-pigeons, whereas its "fancy" offspring have been immensely

modified, and are still being modified, by means of artificial

selection.

You put the difficulty of the first modification of the first protozoon

admirably. I assure you that immediately after the first edition was

published this occurred to me, and I thought of inserting it in the

second edition. I did not, because we know not in the least what the

first germ of life was, nor have we any fact at all to guide us in our

speculations on the kind of change which its offspring underwent. I

dissent quite from what you say of the myriads of years it would take to

people the world with such imagined protozoon. In how very short a time

Ehrenberg calculated that a single infusorium might make a cube of rock!

A single cube on geometrical progression would make the solid globe

in (I suppose) under a century. From what little I know, I cannot help

thinking that you underrate the effects of the physical conditions of

life on these low organisms. But I fully admit that I can give no sort

of answer to your objections; yet I must add that it would be marvellous

if any man ever could, assuming for the moment that my theory is true.

You beg the question, I think, in saying that Protococcus would be

doomed to eternal similarity. Nor can you know that the first germ

resembled a Protococcus or any other now living form.

Page 12 of your letter: There is nothing in my theory necessitating in

each case progression of organisation, though Natural Selection tends in

this line, and has generally thus acted. An animal, if it become

fitted by selection to live the life, for instance, of a parasite, will

generally become degraded. I have much regretted that I did not make

this part of the subject clearer. I left out this and many other

subjects, which I now see ought to have been introduced. I have inserted

a discussion on this subject in the foreign editions. (110/7. In the

third Edition a discussion on this point is added in Chapter IV.) In

no case will any organic being tend to retrograde, unless such

retrogradation be an advantage to its varying offspring; and it is

difficult to see how going back to the structure of the unknown supposed

original protozoon could ever be an advantage.

Page 13 of your letter: I have been more glad to read your discussion

on "dominant" forms than any part of your letter. (110/8. Harvey

writes: "Viewing organic nature in its widest aspect, I think it is

unquestionable that the truly dominant races are not those of high, but

those of low organisation"; and goes on to quote the potato disease,

etc. In the third edition of the "Origin," page 56, a discussion is

introduced defining the author's use of the term "dominant.") I can now

see that I have not been cautious enough in confining my definition

and meaning. I cannot say that you have altered my views. If Botrytis

[Phytophthora] had exterminated the wild potato, a low form would have

conquered a high; but I cannot remember that I have ever said (I am

sure I never thought) that a low form would never conquer a high. I have

expressly alluded to parasites half exterminating game-animals, and

to the struggle for life being sometimes between forms as different as

possible: for instance, between grasshoppers and herbivorous quadrupeds.

Under the many conditions of life which this world affords, any group

which is numerous in individuals and species and is widely distributed,

may properly be called dominant. I never dreamed of considering that

any one group, under all conditions and throughout the world, would be

predominant. How could vertebrata be predominant under the conditions

of life in which parasitic worms live? What good would their perfected

senses and their intellect serve under such conditions? When I have

spoken of dominant forms, it has been in relation to the multiplication

of new specific forms, and the dominance of any one species has been

relative generally to other members of the same group, or at least to

beings exposed to similar conditions and coming into competition. But I

daresay that I have not in the "Origin" made myself clear, and space has

rendered it impossible. But I thank you most sincerely for your valuable

remarks, though I do not agree with them.

About sudden jumps: I have no objection to them--they would aid me in

some cases. All I can say is, that I went into the subject, and found

no evidence to make me believe in jumps; and a good deal pointing in the

other direction. You will find it difficult (page 14 of your letter) to

make a marked line of separation between fertile and infertile crosses.

I do not see how the apparently sudden change (for the suddenness of

change in a chrysalis is of course largely only apparent) in larvae

during their development throws any light on the subject.

I wish I could have made this letter better worth sending to you. I have

had it copied to save you at least the intolerable trouble of reading

my bad handwriting. Again I thank you for your great liberality and

kindness in sending me your criticisms, and I heartily wish we were

a little nearer in accord; but we must remain content to be as wide

asunder as the poles, but without, thank God, any malice or other

ill-feeling.

LETTER 111. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(111/1. Dr. Asa Gray's articles in the "Atlantic Monthly," July, August,

and October, 1860, were published in England as a pamphlet, and form