I do nothing here except occasionally look at a few flowers, and there

are very few here, for the country is wonderfully barren.

See what it is to be well trained. Horace said to me yesterday, "If

every one would kill adders they would come to sting less." I

answered: "Of course they would, for there would be fewer." He replied

indignantly: "I did not mean that; but the timid adders which run away

would be saved, and in time would never sting at all." Natural selection

of cowards!

LETTER 142. H. FALCONER TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(142/1. This refers to the MS. of Falconer's paper "On the American

Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi,

Falc.)," published in the "Natural History Review," January, 1863, page

43. The section dealing with the bearing of his facts on Darwin's views

is at page 77. He insists strongly (page 78) on the "persistence and

uniformity of the characters of the molar teeth in the earliest known

mammoth, and his most modern successor." Nevertheless, he adds that

the "inferences I draw from these facts are not opposed to one of the

leading propositions of Darwin's theory." These admissions were the

more satisfactory since, as Falconer points out (page 77), "I have been

included by him in the category of those who have vehemently maintained

the persistence of specific characters.")

21, Park Crescent, Portland Place, N.W., September 24th [1862].

Do not be frightened at the enclosure. I wish to set myself right by you

before I go to press. I am bringing out a heavy memoir on elephants--an

omnium gatherum affair, with observations on the fossil and recent

species. One section is devoted to the persistence in time of the

specific characters of the mammoth. I trace him from before the Glacial

period, through it and after it, unchangeable and unchanged as far as

the organs of digestion (teeth) and locomotion are concerned. Now, the

Glacial period was no joke: it would have made ducks and drakes of your

dear pigeons and doves.

With all my shortcomings, I have such a sincere and affectionate regard

for you and such admiration of your work, that I should be pained to

find that I had expressed my honest convictions in a way that would be

open to any objection by you. The reasoning may be very stupid, but I

believe that the observation is sound. Will you, therefore, look over

the few pages which I have sent, and tell me whether you find any flaw,

or whether you think I should change the form of expression? You have

been so unhandsomely and uncandidly dealt with by a friend of yours

and mine that I should be sorry to find myself in the position of an

opponent to you, and more particularly with the chance of making a fool

of myself.

I met your brother yesterday, who tells me you are coming to town. I

hope you will give me a hail. I long for a jaw with you, and have much

to speak to you about.

You will have seen the eclaircissement about the Eocene monkeys

of England. By a touch of the conjuring wand they have been

metamorphosed--a la Darwin--into Hyracotherian pigs. (142/2. "On the

Hyracotherian Character of the Lower Molars of the supposed Macacus from

the Eocene Sand of Kyson, Suffolk." "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume X.,

1862, page 240. In this note Owen stated that the teeth which he had

named Macacus ("Ann. Mag." 1840, page 191) most probably belonged to

Hyracotherium cuniculus. See "A Catalogue of British Fossil Vertebrata,"

A.S. Woodward and C.D. Sherborn, 1890, under Hyracotherium, page 356;

also Zittel's "Handbuch der Palaeontologie" Abth. I., Bd. IV., Leipzig,

1891-93, page 703.) Would you believe it? This even is a gross blunder.

They are not pigs.

LETTER 143. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, October 1st [1862].

On my return home yesterday I found your letter and MS., which I have

read with extreme interest. Your note and every word in your paper are

expressed with the same kind feeling which I have experienced from you

ever since I have had the happiness of knowing you. I value scientific

praise, but I value incomparably higher such kind feeling as yours.

There is not a single word in your paper to which I could possibly

object: I should be mad to do so; its only fault is perhaps its too

great kindness. Your case seems the most striking one which I have met

with of the persistence of specific characters. It is very much the more

striking as it relates to the molar teeth, which differ so much in the

species of the genus, and in which consequently I should have expected

variation. As I read on I felt not a little dumbfounded, and thought to

myself that whenever I came to this subject I should have to be savage

against myself; and I wondered how savage you would be. I trembled a

little. My only hope was that something could be made out of the bog

N. American forms, which you rank as a geographical race; and possibly

hereafter out of the Sicilian species. Guess, then, my satisfaction when

I found that you yourself made a loophole (143/1. This perhaps refers

to a passage ("N.H. Review," 1863, page 79) in which Falconer allows the

existence of intermediate forms along certain possible lines of descent.

Falconer's reference to the Sicilian elephants is in a note on page 78;

the bog-elephant is mentioned on page 79.), which I never, of course,

could have guessed at; and imagine my still greater satisfaction at

your expressing yourself as an unbeliever in the eternal immutability of

species. Your final remarks on my work are too generous, but have given

me not a little pleasure. As for criticisms, I have only small ones.

When you speak of "moderate range of variation" I cannot but think that

you ought to remind your readers (though I daresay previously done) what

the amount is, including the case of the American bog-mammoth. You speak

of these animals as having been exposed to a vast range of climatal

changes from before to after the Glacial period. I should have thought,

from analogy of sea-shells, that by migration (or local extinction when

migration not possible) these animals might and would have kept under

nearly the same climate.

A rather more important consideration, as it seems to me, is that the

whole proboscidean group may, I presume, be looked at as verging towards

extinction: anyhow, the extinction has been complete as far as Europe

and America are concerned. Numerous considerations and facts have led

me in the "Origin" to conclude that it is the flourishing or dominant

members of each order which generally give rise to new races,

sub-species, and species; and under this point of view I am not at all

surprised at the constancy of your species. This leads me to remark that

the sentence at the bottom of page [80] is not applicable to my

views (143/2. See Falconer at the bottom of page 80: it is the old

difficulty--how can variability co-exist with persistence of type? In

our copy of the letter the passage is given as occurring on page 60,

a slip of the pen for page 80.), though quite applicable to those who

attribute modification to the direct action of the conditions of life.

An elephant might be more individually variable than any known quadruped

(from the effects of the conditions of life or other innate unknown

causes), but if these variations did not aid the animal in better

resisting all hostile influences, and therefore making it increase in

numbers, there would be no tendency to the preservation and accumulation

of such variations--i.e. to the formation of a new race. As the

proboscidean group seems to be from utterly unknown causes a failing

group in many parts of the world, I should not have anticipated the

formation of new races.

You make important remarks versus Natural Selection, and you will

perhaps be surprised that I do to a large extent agree with you. I could

show you many passages, written as strongly as I could in the "Origin,"

declaring that Natural Selection can do nothing without previous

variability; and I have tried to put equally strongly that variability

is governed by many laws, mostly quite unknown. My title deceives

people, and I wish I had made it rather different. Your phyllotaxis

(143/3. Falconer, page 80: "The law of Phyllotaxis...is nearly as

constant in its manifestation as any of the physical laws connected with

the material world.") will serve as example, for I quite agree that the

spiral arrangement of a certain number of whorls of leaves (however that

may have primordially arisen, and whether quite as invariable as you

state), governs the limits of variability, and therefore governs what

Natural Selection can do. Let me explain how it arose that I laid so

much stress on Natural Selection, and I still think justly. I came to

think from geographical distribution, etc., etc., that species probably

change; but for years I was stopped dead by my utter incapability of

seeing how every part of each creature (a woodpecker or swallow, for

instance) had become adapted to its conditions of life. This seemed

to me, and does still seem, the problem to solve; and I think Natural

Selection solves it, as artificial selection solves the adaptation of

domestic races for man's use. But I suspect that you mean something

further,--that there is some unknown law of evolution by which species

necessarily change; and if this be so, I cannot agree. This, however,

is too large a question even for so unreasonably long a letter as

this. Nevertheless, just to explain by mere valueless conjectures how I

imagine the teeth of your elephants change, I should look at the change

as indirectly resulting from changes in the form of the jaws, or from

the development of tusks, or in the case of the primigenius even from

correlation with the woolly covering; in all cases Natural Selection

checking the variation. If, indeed, an elephant would succeed better by

feeding on some new kinds of food, then any variation of any kind in the

teeth which favoured their grinding power would be preserved. Now, I can

fancy you holding up your hands and crying out what bosh! To return

to your concluding sentence: far from being surprised, I look at it

as absolutely certain that very much in the "Origin" will be proved

rubbish; but I expect and hope that the framework will stand. (143/4.

Falconer, page 80: "He [Darwin] has laid the foundations of a great

edifice: but he need not be surprised if, in the progress of erection,

the superstructure is altered by his successors...")

I had hoped to have called on you on Monday evening, but was quite

knocked up. I saw Lyell yesterday morning. He was very curious about

your views, and as I had to write to him this morning I could not help

telling him a few words on your views. I suppose you are tired of the

"Origin," and will never read it again; otherwise I should like you to

have the third edition, and would gladly send it rather than you should

look at the first or second edition. With cordial thanks for your

generous kindness.

LETTER 144. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Royal Gardens, Kew, November

7th, 1862.

I am greatly relieved by your letter this morning about my Arctic essay,

for I had been conjuring up some egregious blunder (like the granitic

plains of Patagonia).. Certes, after what you have told me of Dawson,

he will not like the letter I wrote to him days ago, in which I told

him that it was impossible to entertain a strong opinion against the

Darwinian hypothesis without its giving rise to a mental twist when

viewing matters in which that hypothesis was or might be involved. I

told him I felt that this was so with me when I opposed you, and that

all minds are subject to such obliquities!--the Lord help me, and this

to an LL.D. and Principal of a College! I proceeded to discuss his

Geology with the effrontery of a novice; and, thank God, I urged the

very argument of your letter about evidence of subsidence--viz., not all

submerged at once, and glacial action being subaerial and not oceanic.

Your letter hence was a relief, for I felt I was hardly strong enough to

have launched out as I did to a professed geologist.

(144/1. [On the subject of the above letter, see one of earlier date by

Sir J.D. Hooker (November 2nd, 1862) given in the present work (Letter

354) with Darwin's reply (Letter 355).])

LETTER 145. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 14th [1862].

I have read your paper (145/1. "On the disputed Affinity of the

Mammalian Genus Plagiaulax, from the Purbeck beds."--"Quart. Journ.

Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page 348, 1862.) with extreme interest, and I

thank you for sending it, though I should certainly have carefully

read it, or anything with your name, in the Journal. It seems to me a

masterpiece of close reasoning: although, of course, not a judge of

such subjects, I cannot feel any doubt that it is conclusive. Will Owen

answer you? I expect that from his arrogant view of his own position he

will not answer. Your paper is dreadfully severe on him, but perfectly

courteous, and polished as the finest dagger. How kind you are towards

me: your first sentence (145/2. "One of the most accurate observers and

original thinkers of our time has discoursed with emphatic eloquence on

the Imperfection of the Geological Record.") has pleased me more than

perhaps it ought to do, if I had any modesty in my composition. By the

way, after reading the first whole paragraph, I re-read it, not for

matter, but for style; and then it suddenly occurred to me that a

certain man once said to me, when I urged him to publish some of his

miscellaneous wealth of knowledge, "Oh, he could not write,--he hated

it," etc. You false man, never say that to me again. Your incidental

remark on the remarkable specialisation of Plagiaulax (145/3. "If

Plagiaulax be regarded through the medium of the view advocated with

such power by Darwin, through what a number of intermediate forms must

not the genus have passed before it attained the specialised condition

in which the fossils come before us!") (which has stuck in my gizzard

ever since I read your first paper) as bearing on the number of

preceding forms, is quite new to me, and, of course, is in accordance to

my notions a most impressive argument. I was also glad to be reminded of

teeth of camel and tarsal bones. (145/4. Op. cit. page 353. A reference

to Cuvier's instance "of the secret relation between the upper

canine-shaped incisors of the camel and the bones of the tarsus.")

Descent from an intermediate form, Ahem!

Well, all I can say is that I have not been for a long time more

interested with a paper than with yours. It gives me a demoniacal

chuckle to think of Owen's pleasant countenance when he reads it.

I have not been in London since the end of September; when I do come I

will beat up your quarters if I possibly can; but I do not know what

has come over me. I am worse than ever in bearing any excitement. Even

talking of an evening for less than two hours has twice recently brought

on such violent vomiting and trembling that I dread coming up to London.

I hear that you came out strong at Cambridge (145/5. Prof. Owen, in a

communication to the British Association at Cambridge (1862) "On a tooth

of Mastodon from the Tertiary marls, near Shanghai," brought forward

the case of the Australian Mastodon as a proof of the remarkable

geographical distribution of the Proboscidia. In a subsequent discussion

he frankly abandoned it, in consequence of the doubts then urged

regarding its authenticity. (See footnote, page 101, in Falconer's paper

"On the American Fossil Elephant," "Nat. Hist. Review," 1863.)), and am

heartily glad you attacked the Australian Mastodon. I never did or could

believe in him. I wish you would read my little Primula paper in the

"Linnean Journal," Volume VI. Botany (No. 22), page 77 (I have no copy

which I can spare), as I think there is a good chance that you may have

observed similar cases. This is my real hobby-horse at present. I have

re-tested this summer the functional difference of the two forms in

Primula, and find all strictly accurate. If you should know of any cases

analogous, pray inform me. Farewell, my good and kind friend.

LETTER 146. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(146/1. The following letter is interesting in connection with a letter

addressed to Sir J.D. Hooker, March 26th, 1862, No. 136, where the

value of Natural Selection is stated more strongly by Sir Joseph than by

Darwin. It is unfortunate that Sir Joseph's letter, to which this is a

reply, has not been found.)

Down, November 20th [1862].

Your last letter has interested me to an extraordinary degree, and your

truly parsonic advice, "some other wise and discreet person," etc.,

etc., amused us not a little. I will put a concrete case to show what

I think A. Gray believes about crossing and what I believe. If 1,000

pigeons were bred together in a cage for 10,000 years their number

not being allowed to increase by chance killing, then from mutual

intercrossing no varieties would arise; but, if each pigeon were a

self-fertilising hermaphrodite, a multitude of varieties would

arise. This, I believe, is the common effect of crossing, viz., the

obliteration of incipient varieties. I do not deny that when two marked

varieties have been produced, their crossing will produce a third

or more intermediate varieties. Possibly, or probably, with domestic

varieties, with a strong tendency to vary, the act of crossing tends

to give rise to new characters; and thus a third or more races, not

strictly intermediate, may be produced. But there is heavy evidence

against new characters arising from crossing wild forms; only

intermediate races are then produced. Now, do you agree thus far? if

not, it is no use arguing; we must come to swearing, and I am convinced

I can swear harder than you, therefore I am right. Q.E.D.

If the number of 1,000 pigeons were prevented increasing not by chance

killing, but by, say, all the shorter-beaked birds being killed, then

the WHOLE body would come to have longer beaks. Do you agree?

Thirdly, if 1,000 pigeons were kept in a hot country, and another

1,000 in a cold country, and fed on different food, and confined in

different-size aviary, and kept constant in number by chance killing,

then I should expect as rather probable that after 10,000 years the two

bodies would differ slightly in size, colour, and perhaps other trifling

characters; this I should call the direct action of physical conditions.

By this action I wish to imply that the innate vital forces are somehow

led to act rather differently in the two cases, just as heat will

allow or cause two elements to combine, which otherwise would not have

combined. I should be especially obliged if you would tell me what you

think on this head.

But the part of your letter which fairly pitched me head over heels with

astonishment, is that where you state that every single difference which

we see might have occurred without any selection. I do and have always

fully agreed; but you have got right round the subject, and viewed it

from an entirely opposite and new side, and when you took me there I was

astounded. When I say I agree, I must make the proviso, that under

your view, as now, each form long remains adapted to certain fixed

conditions, and that the conditions of life are in the long run

changeable; and second, which is more important, that each individual

form is a self-fertilising hermaphrodite, so that each hair-breadth

variation is not lost by intercrossing. Your manner of putting the case

would be even more striking than it is if the mind could grapple with

such numbers--it is grappling with eternity--think of each of a thousand

seeds bringing forth its plant, and then each a thousand. A globe

stretching to the furthest fixed star would very soon be covered. I

cannot even grapple with the idea, even with races of dogs, cattle,

pigeons, or fowls; and here all admit and see the accurate strictness of

your illustration.

Such men as you and Lyell thinking that I make too much of a Deus of

Natural Selection is a conclusive argument against me. Yet I hardly know

how I could have put in, in all parts of my book, stronger sentences.

The title, as you once pointed out, might have been better. No one ever

objects to agriculturalists using the strongest language about their

selection, yet every breeder knows that he does not produce the

modification which he selects. My enormous difficulty for years was to

understand adaptation, and this made me, I cannot but think, rightly,

insist so much on Natural Selection. God forgive me for writing at such

length; but you cannot tell how much your letter has interested me, and

how important it is for me with my present book in hand to try and get

clear ideas. Do think a bit about what is meant by direct action of

physical conditions. I do not mean whether they act; my facts will throw

some light on this. I am collecting all cases of bud-variations, in

contradistinction to seed-variations (do you like this term, for what

some gardeners call "sports"?); these eliminate all effects of crossing.

Pray remember how much I value your opinion as the clearest and most

original I ever get.

I see plainly that Welwitschia (146/2. Sir Joseph's great paper on

Welwitschia mirabilis was published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." 1863.)

will be a case of Barnacles.

I have another plant to beg, but I write on separate paper as more

convenient for you to keep. I meant to have said before, as an excuse

for asking for so much from Kew, that I have now lost TWO seasons, by

accursed nurserymen not having right plants, and sending me the wrong

instead of saying that they did not possess.

LETTER 147. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 24th [November, 1862].

I have just received enclosed for you, and I have thought that you

would like to read the latter half of A. Gray's letter to me, as it is

political and nearly as mad as ever in our English eyes. You will see

how the loss of the power of bullying is in fact the sore loss to the

men of the North from disunion.

I return with thanks Bates' letter, which I was glad to see. It was

very good of you writing to him, for he is evidently a man who wants

encouragement. I have now finished his paper (but have read nothing

else in the volume); it seems to me admirable. To my mind the act of

segregation of varieties into species was never so plainly brought

forward, and there are heaps of capital miscellaneous observations.

I hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present work is leading

me to believe rather more in the direct action of physical conditions. I

presume I regret it, because it lessens the glory of Natural Selection,

and is so confoundedly doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get

all my facts under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this will

be. (147/1. This paragraph was published in "Life and Letters," II.,

page 390. It is not clear why a belief in "direct action" should

diminish the glory of Natural Selection, since the changes so produced

must, like any other variations, pass through the ordeal of the survival

of the fittest. On the whole question of direct action see Mr. Adam

Sedgwick's "Presidential Address to the Zoological Section of the

British Association," 1899.)

LETTER 148. TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 25th [1862?].

I should think it was not necessary to get a written agreement. (148/1.

Mr. Bates' book, "A Naturalist on the Amazons," was published in 1863.)

I have never had one from Murray. I suppose you have a letter with

terms; if not, I should think you had better ask for one to prevent

misunderstandings. I think Sir C. Lyell told me he had not any formal

agreements. I am heartily glad to hear that your book is progressing.

Could you find me some place, even a footnote (though these are in nine

cases out of ten objectionable), where you could state, as fully as your

materials permit, all the facts about similar varieties pairing,--at a

guess how many you caught, and how many now in your collection? I look

at this fact as very important; if not in your book, put it somewhere

else, or let me have cases.

I entirely agree with you on the enormous advantage of thoroughly

studying one group.

I really have no criticism to make. (148/2. Mr. Bates' paper on mimetic

butterflies was read before the Linnean Society, November 21st, 1861,

and published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIII., 1862, page 495, under

the title of "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley.")

Style seems to me very good and clear; but I much regret that in the

title or opening passage you did not blow a loud trumpet about what

you were going to show. Perhaps the paper would have been better more

divided into sections with headings. Perhaps you might have given

somewhere rather more of a summary on the progress of segregation

of varieties, and not referred your readers to the descriptive part,

excepting such readers as wanted minute detail. But these are trifles:

I consider your paper as a most admirable production in every way.

Whenever I come to variation under natural conditions (my head for

months has been exclusively occupied with domestic varieties), I shall

have to study and re-study your paper, and no doubt shall then have to

plague you with questions. I am heartily glad to hear that you are well.

I have been compelled to write in a hurry; so excuse me.

LETTER 149. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 7th [1862].

I was on the point of adding to an order to Williams & Norgate for your

Lectures (149/1. "A Course of Six Lectures to Working Men," published in

six pamphlets by Hardwicke, and later as a book. See Letter 156.) when

they arrived, and much obliged I am. I have read them with interest, and

they seem to me very good for this purpose and capitally written, as is

everything which you write. I suppose every book nowadays requires some

pushing, so that if you do not wish these lectures to be extensively

circulated, I suppose they will not; otherwise I should think they would

do good and spread a taste for the natural sciences. Anyhow, I have

liked them; but I get more and more, I am sorry to say, to care for

nothing but Natural History; and chiefly, as you once said, for the mere

species question. I think I liked No. III. the best of all. I have often

said and thought that the process of scientific discovery was identical

with everyday thought, only with more care; but I never succeeded in

putting the case to myself with one-tenth of the clearness with which

you have done. I think your second geological section will puzzle your

non-scientific readers; anyhow, it has puzzled me, and with the strong

middle line, which must represent either a line of stratification or

some great mineralogical change, I cannot conceive how your statement

can hold good.

I am very glad to hear of your "three-year-old" vigour [?]; but I fear,

with all your multifarious work, that your book on Man will necessarily

be delayed. You bad man; you say not a word about Mrs. Huxley, of whom

my wife and self are always truly anxious to hear.

P.S. I see in the "Cornhill Magazine" a notice of a work by Cohn, which

apparently is important, on the contractile tissue of plants. (149/2.

"Ueber contractile Gewebe im Pflanzenreiche." "Abhand. der Schlesischen

Gesellschaft fur vaterlandische Cultur," Heft I., 1861.) You ought to

have it reviewed. I have ordered it, and must try and make out, if

I can, some of the accursed german, for I am much interested in the

subject, and experimented a little on it this summer, and came to

the conclusion that plants must contain some substance most closely

analogous to the supposed diffused nervous matter in the lower animals;

or as, I presume, it would be more accurate to say with Cohn, that they

have contractile tissue.

Lecture VI., page 151, line 7 from top--wetting FEET or bodies? (Miss

Henrietta Darwin's criticism.) (149/3. Lecture VI., page 151: Lamarck

"said, for example, that the short-legged birds, which live on fish, had

been converted into the long-legged waders by desiring to get the fish

without wetting their feet."

Their criticisms on Lectures IV. and VI. are on a separate piece of

undated paper, and must belong to a letter of later date; only three

lectures were published by December 7th, 1862.)

Lecture IV., page 89--Atavism.

You here and there use atavism = inheritance. Duchesne, who, I believe,

invented the word, in his Strawberry book confined it, as every one has

since done, to resemblance to grandfather or more remote ancestor, in

contradistinction to resemblance to parents.

LETTER 150. TO JOHN SCOTT.

(150/1. The following is the first of a series of letters addressed to

the late John Scott, of which the major part is given in our Botanical

chapters. We have been tempted to give this correspondence fully not

only because of its intrinsic scientific interest, but also because they

are almost the only letters which show Darwin in personal relation with

a younger man engaged in research under his supervision.)

[1862?]

To the best of my judgment, no subject is so important in relation to

theoretical natural science, in several respects, and likewise in

itself deserving investigation, as the effects of changed or unnatural

conditions, or of changed structure on the reproductive system. Under

this point of view the relation of well-marked but undoubted varieties

in fertilising each other requires far more experiments than have been

tried. See in the "Origin" the brief abstract of Gartner on Verbascum

and Zea. Mr. W. Crocker, lately foreman at Kew and a very good observer,

is going at my suggestion to work varieties of hollyhock. (150/2.

Altheae species. These experiments seem not to have been carried out.)

The climate would be too cold, I suppose, for varieties of tobacco. I

began on cabbages, but immediately stopped from early shedding of their

pollen causing too much trouble. Your knowledge would suggest some

[plants]. On the same principle it would be well to test peloric flowers

with their own pollen, and with pollen of regular flowers, and try

pollen of peloric on regular flowers--seeds being counted in each case.

I have now got one seedling from many crosses of a peloric Pelargonium

by peloric pollen; I have two or three seedlings from a peloric flower

by pollen of regular flower. I have ordered a peloric Antirrhinum

(150/3. See "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume II.,

page 70.) and the peloric Gloxinia, but I much fear I shall never have

time to try them. The Passiflora cases are truly wonderful, like the

Crinum cases (see "Origin"). (150/4. "Origin," Edition VI., page 238.)

I have read in a German paper that some varieties of potatoes (name not

given) cannot be fertilised by [their] own pollen, but can by pollen

of other varieties: well worth trying. Again, fertility of any monster

flower, which is pretty regularly produced; I have got the wonderful

Begonia frigida (150/5. The species on which Sir J.D. Hooker wrote in

the "Gardeners' Chronicle," February 25th, 1860. See "Life and Letters,"

II., page 275.) from Kew, but doubt whether I have heat to set its

seeds. If an unmodified Celosia could be got, it would be well to

test with the modified cockscomb. There is a variation of columbine

[Aquilegia] with simple petals without nectaries, etc., etc. I never

could think what to try; but if one could get hold of a long-cultivated

plant which crossed with a distinct species and yielded a very small

number of seeds, then it would be highly good to test comparatively the

wild parent-form and its varying offspring with this third species: for

instance, if a polyanthus would cross with some species of Primula, then

to try a wild cowslip with it. I believe hardly any primulas have ever

been crossed. If we knew and could get the parent of the carnation

(150/6. Dianthus caryophyllus, garden variety.), it would be very good

for this end. Any member of the Lythraceae raised from seed ought to be

well looked after for dimorphism. I have wonderful facts, the result of

experiment, on Lythrum salicaria.

LETTER 151. TO JOHN SCOTT. Down, December 11th [1862].

I have read your paper with much interest. (151/1. "On the Nature and

Peculiarities of the Fern-spore." "Bot. Soc. Edin." Read June 12th,

1862.) You ask for remarks on the matter, which is alone really

important. Shall you think me impertinent (I am sure I do not mean to be

so) if I hazard a remark on the style, which is of more importance than

some think? In my opinion (whether or no worth much) your paper would

have been much better if written more simply and less elaborated--more

like your letters. It is a golden rule always to use, if possible, a

short old Saxon word. Such a sentence as "so purely dependent is the

incipient plant on the specific morphological tendency" does not sound

to my ears like good mother-English--it wants translating. Here and

there you might, I think, have condensed some sentences. I go on the

plan of thinking every single word which can be omitted without actual

loss of sense as a decided gain. Now perhaps you will think me a

meddling intruder: anyhow, it is the advice of an old hackneyed

writer who sincerely wishes you well. Your remark on the two sexes

counteracting variability in product of the one is new to me. (151/2.

Scott (op. cit., page 214): "The reproductive organs of phoenogams,

as is well-known, are always products of two morphologically distinct

organs, the stamens producing the pollen, the carpels producing the

ovules...The embryo being in this case the modified resultant of two

originally distinct organs, there will necessarily be a greater tendency

to efface any individual peculiarities of these than would have been

the case had the embryo been the product of a single organ." A different

idea seems to have occurred to Mr. Darwin, for in an undated letter

to Scott he wrote: "I hardly know what to say on your view of male and

female organs and variability. I must think more over it. But I was

amused by finding the other day in my portfolio devoted to bud-variation

a slip of paper dated June, 1860, with some such words as these, 'May

not permanence of grafted buds be due to the two sexual elements

derived from different parts not having come into play?' I had utterly

forgotten, when I read your paper that any analogous notion had ever

passed through my mind--nor can I now remember, but the slip shows me

that it had." It is interesting that Huxley also came to a conclusion

differing from Scott's; and, curiously enough, Darwin confused the two

views, for he wrote to Scott (December 19th): "By an odd chance, reading

last night some short lectures just published by Prof. Huxley, I find

your observation, independently arrived at by him, on the confluence of

the two sexes causing variability." Professor Huxley's remarks are in

his "Lectures to Working Men on our Knowledge, etc." No. 4, page 90:

"And, indeed, I think that a certain amount of variation from the

primitive stock is the necessary result of the method of sexual

propagation itself; for inasmuch as the thing propagated proceeds from

two organisms of different sexes and different makes and temperaments,

and, as the offspring is to be either of one sex or the other, it is

quite clear that it cannot be an exact diagonal of the two, or it would

be of no sex at all; it cannot be an exact intermediate form between

that of each of its parents--it must deviate to one side or the other.")

But I cannot avoid thinking that there is something unknown and deeper

in seminal generation. Reflect on the long succession of embryological

changes in every animal. Does a bud ever produce cotyledons or embryonic

leaves? I have been much interested by your remark on inheritance at

corresponding ages; I hope you will, as you say, continue to attend to

this. Is it true that female Primula plants always produce females

by parthenogenesis? (151/3. It seems probable that Darwin here means

vegetative reproduction.) If you can answer this I should be glad;

it bears on my Primula work. I thought on the subject, but gave

up investigating what had been observed, because the female bee by

parthenogenesis produces males alone. Your paper has told me much that

in my ignorance was quite new to me. Thanks about P. scotica. If any

important criticisms are made on the Primula to the Botanical Society,

I should be glad to hear them. If you think fit, you may state that I

repeated the crossing experiments on P. sinensis and cowslip with the

same result this spring as last year--indeed, with rather more marked

difference in fertility of the two crosses. In fact, had I then proved

the Linum case, I would not have wasted time in repetition. I am

determined I will at once publish on Linum...

I was right to be cautious in supposing you in error about Siphocampylus

(no flowers were enclosed). I hope that you will make out whether the

pistil presents two definite lengths; I shall be astounded if it does. I

do not fully understand your objections to Natural Selection; if I do,

I presume they would apply with full force to, for instance, birds.

Reflect on modification of Arab-Turk horse into our English racehorse. I

have had the satisfaction to tell my publisher to send my "Journal" and

"Origin" to your address. I suspect, with your fertile mind, you

will find it far better to experiment on your own choice; but if, on

reflection, you would like to try some which interest me, I should be

truly delighted, and in this case would write in some detail. If

you have the means to repeat Gartner's experiments on variations of

Verbascum or on maize (see the "Origin"), such experiments would be

pre-eminently important. I could never get variations of Verbascum.

I could suggest an experiment on potatoes analogous with the case of

Passiflora; even the case of Passiflora, often as it has been repeated,

might be with advantage repeated. I have worked like a slave (having

counted about nine thousand seeds) on Melastoma, on the meaning of the

two sets of very different stamens, and as yet have been shamefully

beaten, and I now cry for aid. I could suggest what I believe a

very good scheme (at least, Dr. Hooker thought so) for systematic

degeneration of culinary plants, and so find out their origin; but this

would be laborious and the work of years.

LETTER 152. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 12th [December, 1862].

My good old Friend--

How kind you have been to give me so much of your time! Your letter

is of real use, and has been and shall be well considered. I am much

pleased to find that we do not differ as much as I feared. I begin my

book with saying that my chief object is to show the inordinate scale

of variation; I have especially studied all sorts of variations of the

individual. On crossing I cannot change; the more I think, the more

reason I have to believe that my conclusion would be agreed to by

all practised breeders. I also greatly doubt about variability and

domestication being at all necessarily correlative, but I have touched

on this in "Origin." Plants being identical under very different

conditions has always seemed to me a very heavy argument against what

I call direct action. I think perhaps I will take the case of 1,000

pigeons (152/1. See Letter 146.) to sum up my volume; I will not discuss

other points, but, as I have said, I shall recur to your letter. But

I must just say that if sterility be allowed to come into play, if

long-beaked be in the least degree sterile with short-beaked, my whole

case is altered. By the way, my notions on hybridity are becoming

considerably altered by my dimorphic work. I am now strongly inclined to

believe that sterility is at first a selected quality to keep incipient

species distinct. If you have looked at Lythrum you will see how pollen

can be modified merely to favour crossing; with equal readiness it could

be modified to prevent crossing.

It is this which makes me so much interested with dimorphism, etc.

(152/2. This gives a narrow impression of Darwin's interest in

dimorphism. The importance of his work was (briefly put) the proof that

sterility has no necessary connection with specific difference, but

depends on sexual differentiation independent of racial differences. See

"Life and Letters," III., page 296. His point of view that sterility

is a selected quality is again given in a letter to Huxley ("Life and

Letters," II., page 384), but was not upheld in his later writings (see

"Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 245). The idea of sterility being

a selected quality is interesting in connection with Romanes' theory of

physiological selection. (See Letters 209-214.))

One word more. When you pitched me head over heels by your new way of

looking at the back side of variation, I received assurance and strength

by considering monsters--due to law: horribly strange as they are, the

monsters were alive till at least when born. They differ at least as

much from the parent as any one mammal from another.

I have just finished a long, weary chapter on simple facts of variation

of cultivated plants, and am now refreshing myself with a paper on Linum

for the Linnean Society.

LETTER 153. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER.

(153/1. The following letter also bears on the question of the

artificial production of sterility.)

Down, 27th [December, 1862].

The present plan is to try whether any existing breeds happen to

have acquired accidentally any degree of sterility; but to this point

hereafter. The enclosed MS. will show what I have done and know on the

subject. Please at some future time carefully return the MS. to me. If I

were going to try again, I would prefer Turbit with Carrier or Dragon.

I will suggest an analogous experiment, which I have had for two years

in my experimental book with "be sure and try," but which, as my health

gets yearly weaker and weaker and my other work increases, I suppose

I shall never try. Permit me to add that if 5 pounds would cover the

expenses of the experiment, I should be delighted to give it, and you

could publish the result if there be any result. I crossed the Spanish

cock (your bird) and white Silk hen and got plenty of eggs and chickens;

but two of them seemed to be quite sterile. I was then sadly overdone

with work, but have ever since much reproached myself that I did not

preserve and carefully test the procreative power of these hens. Now, if

you are inclined to get a Spanish cock and a couple of white Silk hens,

I shall be most grateful to hear whether the offspring breed well: they

will prove, I think, not hardy; if they should prove sterile, which I

can hardly believe, they will anyhow do for the pot. If you do try this,

how would it do to put a Silk cock to your curious silky Cochin hen, so

as to get a big silk breed; it would be curious if you could get silky

fowl with bright colours. I believe a Silk hen crossed by any other

breed never gives silky feathers. A cross from Silk cock and Cochin Silk

hen ought to give silky feathers and probably bright colours.

I have been led lately from experiments (not published) on dimorphism

to reflect much on sterility from hybridism, and partially to change

the opinion given in "Origin." I have now letters out enquiring on the

following point, implied in the experiment, which seems to me well worth

trying, but too laborious ever to be attempted. I would ask every pigeon

and fowl fancier whether they have ever observed, in the same breed, a

cock A paired to a hen B which did not produce young. Then I would get

cock A and match it to a hen of its nearest blood; and hen B to its

nearest blood. I would then match the offspring of A (viz., a, b, c, d,

e) to the offspring of B (viz., f, g, h, i, j), and all those children

which were fertile together should be destroyed until I found one--say

a, which was not quite fertile with--say, i. Then a and i should be

preserved and paired with their parents A and B, so as to try and get

two families which would not unite together; but the members WITHIN each

family being fertile together. This would probably be quite hopeless;

but he who could effect this would, I believe, solve the problem of

sterility from hybridism. If you should ever hear of individual fowls or

pigeons which are sterile together, I should be very grateful to hear of

the case. It is a parallel case to those recorded of a man not impotent

long living with a woman who remained childless; the husband died, and

the woman married again and had plenty of children. Apparently (by

no means certainly) this first man and woman were dissimilar in their

sexual organisation. I conceive it possible that their offspring

(if both had married again and both had children) would be sexually

dissimilar, like their parents, or sterile together. Pray forgive my

dreadful writing; I have been very unwell all day, and have no strength

to re-write this scrawl. I am working slowly on, and I suppose in three

or four months shall be ready.

I am sure I do not know whether any human being could understand or read

this shameful scrawl.

LETTER 154. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December, 28th [1862].

I return enclosed: if you write, thank Mr. Kingsley for thinking

of letting me see the sound sense of an Eastern potentate. (154/1.

Kingsley's letter to Huxley, dated December 20th, 1862, contains a story

or parable of a heathen Khan in Tartary who was visited by a pair of

proselytising Moollahs. The first Moollah said: "Oh! Khan, worship my

God. He is so wise that he made all things." But Moollah No. 2 won the

day by pointing out that his God is "so wise that he makes all things

make themselves.") All that I said about the little book (154/2. The six

"Lectures to Working Men," published in six pamphlets and in book-form

in 1863. Mr. Huxley considered that Mr. Darwin's argument required

the production by man's selection of breeds which should be mutually

infertile, and thus resemble distinct species physiologically as well as

morphologically.) is strictly my opinion; it is in every way excellent,

and cannot fail to do good the wider it is circulated. Whether it is

worth your while to give up time to it is another question for you alone

to decide; that it will do good for the subject is beyond all question.

I do not think a dunce exists who could not understand it, and that is

a bold saying after the extent to which I have been misunderstood. I did

not understand what you required about sterility: assuredly the facts

given do not go nearly so far. We differ so much that it is no use

arguing. To get the degree of sterility you expect in recently formed

varieties seems to me simply hopeless. It seems to me almost like those

naturalists who declare they will never believe that one species turns

into another till they see every stage in process.

I have heard from Tegetmeier, and have given him the result of my

crosses of the birds which he proposes to try, and have told him how

alone I think the experiment could be tried with the faintest hope of

success--namely, to get, if possible, a case of two birds which when

paired were unproductive, yet neither impotent. For instance, I had this

morning a letter with a case of a Hereford heifer, which seemed to be,

after repeated trials, sterile with one particular and far from impotent

bull, but not with another bull. But it is too long a story--it is to

attempt to make two strains, both fertile, and yet sterile when one

of one strain is crossed with one of the other strain. But the

difficulty...would be beyond calculation. As far as I see, Tegetmeier's

plan would simply test whether two existing breeds are now in any

slight degree sterile; which has already been largely tested: not that I

dispute the good of re-testing.

LETTER 155. TO HUGH FALCONER.

(155/1. The original letter is dated "December 10th," but this must, we

think, be a slip of the pen for January 10th. It contains a reference to

No. VI. of the "Lectures to Working Men" which, as Mr. Leonard Huxley

is good enough to inform us, was not delivered until December 15th, and

therefore could not have been seen by Mr. Darwin on December 10th. The

change of date makes comprehensible the reference to Falconer's paper

"On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of

Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.)," which appeared in the January number of the

"Natural History Review." It is true that he had seen advanced sheets of

Falconer's paper ("Life and Letters," II., page 389), but the reference

here is to the complete paper.

In the present volume we have thought it right to give some expression

to the attitude of Darwin towards Owen. Professor Owen's biographer has

clearly felt the difficulty of making a statement on Owen's attitude

towards Darwinism, and has ("Life of Sir Richard Owen," Volume II., page

92) been driven to adopt the severe indictment contained in the "Origin

of Species," Edition VI., page xviii. Darwin was by no means alone in

his distrust of Owen; and to omit altogether a reference to the conduct

which led up to the isolation of Owen among his former friends and

colleagues would be to omit a part of the history of science of the

day. And since we cannot omit to notice Darwin's point of view, it seems

right to give the facts of a typical case illustrating the feeling

with which he regarded Owen. This is all the more necessary since the

recently published biography of Sir R. Owen gives no hint, as far as we

are aware, of even a difference of opinion with other scientific men.

The account which Falconer gives in the above-mentioned paper in the

"Nat. Hist. Review" (January, 1863) would be amusing if the matter were

less serious. In 1857 Falconer described ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc."

XIII.) a new species of fossil elephant from America, to which he gave

the name Elephas Columbi, a designation which was recognised and adopted

by Continental writers. In 1858 (Brit. Assoc. Leeds) Owen made use of

the name "Elephas texianus," Blake" for the species which Falconer

had previously named E. Columbi, but without referring to Falconer's

determination; he gave no authority, "thus by the established usage in

zoology producing it as his own." In 1861 Owen in his Palaeontology,

2nd edition, 1861, describes the elephant as E. texianus, Blake. To

Mr. Blake's name is appended an asterisk which refers to a footnote

to Bollaert's "Antiquities of S. America," 2nd edition. According to

Falconer (page 46) no second edition of Bollaert had appeared at the

time of writing (August, 1862), and in the first edition (1860) he

was "unable to detect the occurrence of the name even, of E. texianus,

anywhere throughout the volume"; though Bollaert mentions the fact that

he had deposited, in the British Museum, the tooth of a fossil elephant

from Texas.

In November, 1861, Blake wrote a paper in the "Geologist" in which the

new elephant no longer bears his own name as authority, but is described

as "Elephas texianus, Owen, E. Columbi, Falconer." Finally, in another

paper the name of Owen is dropped and the elephant is once more his own.

As Falconer remarks, "the usage of science does not countenance such

accommodating arrangements, when the result is to prejudice a prior

right."

It may be said, no doubt, that the question who first described a given

species is a petty one; but this view has a double edge, and

applies most strongly to those who neglect the just claims of their

predecessors.

Down, January 5th [1863].

I finished your Elephant paper last night, and you must let me express

my admiration at it. (155/2. "On the American Fossil Elephant of the

Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.), etc." "Nat.

Hist. Rev." 1863, page 81. (Cf. Letter to Lyell. "Life and Letters,"

II., page 389; also "Origin," Edition VI., page 306.) See Letter 143.)

All the points strike me as admirably worked out, and very many

most interesting. I was particularly struck with your remarks on the

character of the ancient Mammalian Fauna of N. America (155/3. Falconer,

page 62. This passage is marked in Darwin's copy.); it agrees with all I

fancied was the case, namely a temporary irruption of S. American forms

into N. America, and conversely, I chuckled a little over the specimen

of M. Andium "hesitating" between the two groups. (155/4. In speaking of

the characters of Mastodon Andium, Falconer refers to a former paper

by himself ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XIII. 1857, page 313),

in which he called attention "to the exceptional character of

certain specimens of M. Andium, as if hesitating between [the groups]

Tetralophodon and Trilophodon" (ibid., page 100).) I have been assured

by Mr. Wallace that abundant Mastodon remains have been found at Timor,

and that is rather close to Australia. I rejoice that you have smashed

that case. (155/5. In the paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (loc. cit.)

Falconer writes: "It seems more probable that some unintentional error

has got mixed up with the history of this remarkable fossil; and until

further confirmatory evidence is adduced, of an unimpeachable character,

faith cannot be reposed in the reality of the asserted Australian

Mastodon" (page 101).) It is indeed a grand paper. I will say nothing

more about your allusions to me, except that they have pleased me quite

as much in print as in MS. You must have worked very hard; the labour

must have been extreme, but I do hope that you will have health and

strength to go on. You would laugh if you could see how indignant all

Owen's mean conduct about E. Columbi made me. (155/6. See Letter 157.) I

did not get to sleep till past 3 o'clock. How well you lash him, firmly

and severely, with unruffled temper, as if you were performing a simple

duty. The case is come to such a pass, that I think every man of science

is bound to show his feelings by some overt act, and I shall watch for a

fitting opportunity.

P.S.--I have kept back for a day the enclosed owing to the arrival of

your most interesting letter. I knew it was a mere chance whether you

could inform me on the points required; but no one other person has so

often responded to my miscellaneous queries. I believe I have now in my

greenhouse L. trigynum (155/7. Linum trigynum.), which came up from seed

purchased as L. flavum, from which it is wholly different in foliage. I

have just sent in a paper on Dimorphism of Linum to the Linnean Society

(155/8. "On the Existence of the Forms, and on their reciprocal Sexual

Relation, in several species of the genus Linum.--"Journ. Linn. Soc."

Volume VII., page 69, 1864.), and so I do not doubt your memory is right

about L. trigynum: the functional difference in the two forms of Linum

is really wonderful. I assure you I quite long to see you and a few

others in London; it is not so much the eczema which has taken the

epidermis a dozen times clean off; but I have been knocked up of late

with extraordinary facility, and when I shall be able to come up I know

not. I particularly wish to hear about the wondrous bird: the case has

delighted me, because no group is so isolated as Birds. I much wish to

hear when we meet which digits are developed; when examining birds two

or three years ago, I distinctly remember writing to Lyell that some

day a fossil bird would be found with the end of wing cloven, i.e.

the bastard-wing and other part, both well developed. Thanks for Von

Martius, returned by this post, which I was glad to see. Poor old

Wagner (Probably Johann Andreas Wagner, author of "Zur Feststellung des

Artbegriffes, mit besonderer Bezugnahme auf die Ansichten von Nathusius,

Darwin, Is. Geoffroy and Agassiz," "Munchen Sitzungsb." (1861),

page 301, and of numerous papers on zoological and palaeozoological

subjects.) always attacked me in a proper spirit, and sent me two or

three little brochures, and I thanked him cordially. The Germans seem

much stirred up on the subject. I received by the same post almost a

little volume on the "Origin."

I cannot work above a couple of hours daily, and this plays the deuce

with me.

P.S. 2nd.--I have worked like a slave and been baffled like a slave in

trying to make out the meaning of two very different sets of stamens in

some Melastomaceae. (155/9. Several letters on the Melastomaceae occur

in our Botanical section.) I must tell you one fact. I counted 9,000

seeds, one by one, from my artificially fertilised pods. There is

something very odd, but I am as yet beaten. Plants from two pollens grow

at different rates! Now, what I want to know is, whether in individuals

of the same species, growing together, you have ever noticed any

difference in the position of the pistil or in the size and colour of

the stamens?

LETTER 156. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 18th [1862].

I have read Nos. IV, and V. (156/1. "On our Knowledge of the Causes

of the Phenomena of Organic Nature," being six Lectures to Working Men

delivered at the Museum of Practical Geology by Prof. Huxley, 1863.

These lectures, which were given once a week from November 10th, 1862,

onwards, were printed from the notes of Mr. J.A. Mays, a shorthand

writer, who asked permission to publish them on his own account; Mr.

Huxley stating in a prefatory "Notice" that he had no leisure to

revise the lectures.) They are simply perfect. They ought to be largely

advertised; but it is very good in me to say so, for I threw down No.

IV. with this reflection, "What is the good of writing a thundering big

book, when everything is in this green little book, so despicable for

its size?" In the name of all that is good and bad, I may as well shut

up shop altogether. You put capitally and most simply and clearly the

relation of animals and plants to each other at page 122.

Be careful about Fantails: their tail-feathers are fixed in a radiating

position, but they can depress and elevate them. I remember in a

pigeon-book seeing withering contempt expressed at some naturalist for

not knowing this important point! Page 111 (156/2. The reference is

to the original little green paper books in which the lectures first

appeared; the paging in the bound volume dated 1863 is slightly

different. The passage here is, "...If you couple a male and female

hybrid...the result is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you

will get no offspring at all." Darwin maintains elsewhere that Huxley,

from not knowing the botanical evidence, made too much of this point.

See "Life and Letters," II., page 384.) seems a little too strong--viz.,

ninety-nine out of a hundred, unless you except plants.

Page 118: You say the answer to varieties when crossed being at all

sterile is "absolutely a negative." (156/3. Huxley, page 112: "Can we

find any approximation to this [sterility of hybrids] in the different

races known to be produced by selective breeding from a common stock? Up

to the present time the answer to that question is absolutely a negative

one.") Do you mean to say that Gartner lied, after experiments by the

hundred (and he a hostile witness), when he showed that this was the

case with Verbascum and with maize (and here you have selected races):

does Kolreuter lie when he speaks about the varieties of tobacco? My

God, is not the case difficult enough, without its being, as I must

think, falsely made more difficult? I believe it is my own fault--my

d--d candour: I ought to have made ten times more fuss about these most

careful experiments. I did put it stronger in the third edition of the

"Origin." If you have a new edition, do consider your second geological

section: I do not dispute the truth of your statement; but I maintain

that in almost every case the gravel would graduate into the mud; that

there would not be a hard, straight line between the mass of gravel and

mud; that the gravel, in crawling inland, would be separated from the

underlying beds by oblique lines of stratification. A nice idea of the

difficulty of Geology your section would give to a working man! Do show

your section to Ramsay, and tell him what I say; and if he thinks it

a fair section for a beginner I am shut up, and "will for ever hold my

tongue." Good-night.

LETTER 157. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, [January] 10th [1863].

You will be weary of notes from me about the little book of yours. It is

lucky for me that I expressed, before reading No. VI. (157/1. "Lectures

to Working Men," No. VI., is a critical examination of the position

of the "Origin of Species" in relation to the complete theory of

the "causes of the phenomena of organic nature."), my opinion of its

absolute excellence, and of its being well worth wide distribution

and worth correction (not that I see where you could improve), if you

thought it worth your valuable time. Had I read No. VI., even a rudiment

of modesty would, or ought to, have stopped me saying so much. Though I

have been well abused, yet I have had so much praise, that I have become

a gourmand, both as to capacity and taste; and I really did not think

that mortal man could have tickled my palate in the exquisite manner

with which you have done the job. So I am an old ass, and nothing more

need be said about this. I agree entirely with all your reservations

about accepting the doctrine, and you might have gone further with

further safety and truth. Of course I do not wholly agree about

sterility. I hate beyond all things finding myself in disagreement with

any capable judge, when the premises are the same; and yet this will

occasionally happen. Thinking over my former letter to you, I fancied

(but I now doubt) that I had partly found out the cause of our

disagreement, and I attributed it to your naturally thinking most

about animals, with which the sterility of the hybrids is much more

conspicuous than the lessened fertility of the first cross. Indeed,

this could hardly be ascertained with mammals, except by comparing the

products of [their] whole life; and, as far as I know, this has only

been ascertained in the case of the horse and ass, which do produce

fewer offspring in [their] lifetime than in pure breeding. In plants the

test of first cross seems as fair as test of sterility of hybrids. And

this latter test applies, I will maintain to the death, to the crossing

of varieties of Verbascum, and varieties, selected varieties, of Zea.

(157/2. See Letter 156.) You will say Go to the Devil and hold your

tongue. No, I will not hold my tongue; for I must add that after going,

for my present book, all through domestic animals, I have come to the

conclusion that there are almost certainly several cases of two or three

or more species blended together and now perfectly fertile together.

Hence I conclude that there must be something in domestication,--perhaps

the less stable conditions, the very cause which induces so much

variability,--which eliminates the natural sterility of species when

crossed. If so, we can see how unlikely that sterility should arise

between domestic races. Now I will hold my tongue. Page 143: ought

not "Sanscrit" to be "Aryan"? What a capital number the last "Natural

History Review" is! That is a grand paper by Falconer. I cannot say how

indignant Owen's conduct about E. Columbi has made me. I believe I hate

him more than you do, even perhaps more than good old Falconer does. But

I have bubbled over to one or two correspondents on this head, and will

say no more. I have sent Lubbock a little review of Bates' paper in

"Linn. Transact." (157/3. The unsigned review of Mr. Bates' work on

mimetic butterflies appeared in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (1863), page

219.) which L. seems to think will do for your "Review." Do inaugurate a

great improvement, and have pages cut, like the Yankees do; I will heap

blessings on your head. Do not waste your time in answering this.

LETTER 158. TO JOHN LUBBOCK [LORD AVEBURY]. Down, January 23rd [1863].

I have no criticism, except one sentence not perfectly smooth. I think

your introductory remarks very striking, interesting, and novel. (158/1.

"On the Development of Chloeon (Ephemera) dimidiatum, Part I. By John

Lubbock. "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., pages 61-78, 1864 [Read

January 15th, 1863].) They interested me the more, because the vaguest

thoughts of the same kind had passed through my head; but I had no idea

that they could be so well developed, nor did I know of exceptions.

Sitaris and Meloe (158/2. Sitaris and Meloe, two genera of coleopterous

insects, are referred to by Lubbock (op. cit., pages 63-64) as

"perhaps...the most remarkable cases...among the Coleoptera" of curious

and complicated metamorphoses.) seem very good. You have put the whole

case of metamorphosis in a new light; I dare say what you remark about

poverty of fresh-water is very true. (158/3. "We cannot but be struck

by the poverty of the fresh-water fauna when compared with that of

the ocean" (op. cit., page 64).) I think you might write a memoir

on fresh-water productions. I suggest that the key-note is that

land-productions are higher and have advantage in general over marine;

and consequently land-productions have generally been modified into

fresh-water productions, instead of marine productions being directly

changed into fresh-water productions, as at first seems more probable,

as the chance of immigration is always open from sea to rivers and

ponds.

My talk with you did me a deal of good, and I enjoyed it much.

LETTER 159. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 13th [1863].

I send a very imperfect answer to [your] question, which I have written

on foreign paper to save you copying, and you can send when you write

to Thomson in Calcutta. Hereafter I shall be able to answer better your

question about qualities induced in individuals being inherited; gout

in man--loss of wool in sheep (which begins in the first generation and

takes two or three to complete); probably obesity (for it is rare with

poor); probably obesity and early maturity in short-horn cattle, etc.,

etc.

LETTER 160. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 14th [1863].

I thank you most sincerely for sending me your Memoir. (160/1. Etude

sur l'Espece a l'occasion d'une revision de la Famille des Cupuliferes.

"Biblioth. Univ. (Arch. des Sc. Phys. et Nat.)," Novembre 1862.) I have

read it with the liveliest interest, as is natural for me; but you have

the art of making subjects, which might be dry, run easily. I have been

fairly astonished at the amount of individual variability in the oaks.

I never saw before the subject in any department of nature worked out so

carefully. What labour it must have cost you! You spoke in one letter

of advancing years; but I am very sure that no one would have suspected

that you felt this. I have been interested with every part; though I am

so unfortunate as to differ from most of my contemporaries in thinking

that the vast continental extensions (160/2. See Letters 47, 48.)

of Forbes, Heer, and others are not only advanced without sufficient

evidence, but are opposed to much weighty evidence. You refer to my work

in the kindest and most generous spirit. I am fully satisfied at the

length in belief to which you go, and not at all surprised at the

prudent reservations which you make. I remember well how many years it

cost me to go round from old beliefs. It is encouraging to me to observe

that everyone who has gone an inch with me, after a period goes a few

more inches or even feet. But the great point, as it seems to me, is to

give up the immutability of specific forms; as long as they are thought

immutable, there can be no real progress in "Epiontology." (160/3. See

De Candolle, loc. cit., page 67: he defines "Epiontologie" as the study

of the distribution and succession of organised beings from their origin

up to the present time. At present Epiontology is divided into geography

and palaeontology, "mais cette division trop inegale et a limites bien

vagues disparaitra probablement.") It matters very little to any one

except myself, whether I am a little more or less wrong on this or that

point; in fact, I am sure to be proved wrong in many points. But the

subject will have, I am convinced, a grand future. Considering that

birds are the most isolated group in the animal kingdom, what a splendid

case is this Solenhofen bird-creature with its long tail and fingers to

its wings! I have lately been daily and hourly using and quoting your

"Geographical Botany" in my book on "Variation under Domestication."

LETTER 161. TO HORACE DOBELL. Down, February 16th [1863].

Absence from home and consequent idleness are the causes that I have not

sooner thanked you for your very kind present of your Lectures. (161/1.

"On the Germs and Vestiges of Disease," (London) 1861.) Your reasoning

seems quite satisfactory (though the subject is rather beyond my limit

of thought and knowledge) on the V.M.F. not being "a given quantity."

(161/2. "It has been too common to consider the force exhibited in

the operations of life (the V.M.F.) as a given quantity, to which no

accessions can be made, but which is apportioned to each living being in

quantity sufficient for its necessities, according to some hidden law"

(op. cit., page 41.) And I can see that the conditions of life must play

a most important part in allowing this quantity to increase, as in the

budding of a tree, etc. How far these conditions act on "the forms of

organic life" (page 46) I do not see clearly. In fact, no part of my

subject has so completely puzzled me as to determine what effect to

attribute to (what I vaguely call) the direct action of the conditions

of life. I shall before long come to this subject, and must endeavour to

come to some conclusion when I have got the mass of collected facts

in some sort of order in my mind. My present impression is that I

have underrated this action in the "Origin." I have no doubt when I go

through your volume I shall find other points of interest and value to

me. I have already stumbled on one case (about which I want to consult

Mr. Paget)--namely, on the re-growth of supernumerary digits. (161/3.

See Letters 178, 270.) You refer to "White on Regeneration, etc., 1785."

I have been to the libraries of the Royal and the Linnean Societies, and

to the British Museum, where the librarians got out your volume and made

a special hunt, and could discover no trace of such a book. Will you

grant me the favour of giving me any clue, where I could see the book?

Have you it? if so, and the case is given briefly, would you have the

great kindness to copy it? I much want to know all particulars. One

case has been given me, but with hardly minute enough details, of a

supernumerary little finger which has already been twice cut off, and

now the operation will soon have to be done for the third time. I am

extremely much obliged for the genealogical table; the fact of the two

cousins not, as far as yet appears, transmitting the peculiarity is

extraordinary, and must be given by me.

LETTER 162. TO C. LYELL. [February 17th, 1863.]

The same post that brought the enclosed brought Dana's pamphlet on

the same subject. (162/1. The pamphlet referred to was published in

"Silliman's Journal," Volume XXV., 1863, pages 65 and 71, also in the

"Annals and Magazine of Natural History," Volume XI., pages 207-14,

1863: "On the Higher Subdivisions in the Classification of Mammals." In

this paper Dana maintains the view that "Man's title to a position by

himself, separate from the other mammals in classification, appears

to be fixed on structural as well as physical grounds" (page 210). His

description is as follows:--

I. ARCHONTIA (vel DIPODA) Man (alone).

II. MEGASTHENA. III. MICROSTHENA.

Quadrumana. Cheiroptera.

Carnivora. Insectivora.

Herbivora. Rodentia.

Mutilata. Bruta (Edentata).

IV. OOTICOIDEA.

Marsupialia.

Monotremata.)

The whole seems to me utterly wild. If there had not been the foregone

wish to separate men, I can never believe that Dana or any one would

have relied on so small a distinction as grown man not using fore-limbs

for locomotion, seeing that monkeys use their limbs in all other

respects for the same purpose as man. To carry on analogous principles

(for they are not identical, in crustacea the cephalic limbs are brought

close to mouth) from crustacea to the classification of mammals seems

to me madness. Who would dream of making a fundamental distinction in

birds, from fore-limbs not being used at all in [some] birds, or used as

fins in the penguin, and for flight in other birds?

I get on slowly with your grand work, for I am overwhelmed with odds and

ends and letters.

LETTER 163. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(163/1. The following extract refers to Owen's paper in the "Linn. Soc.

Journal," June, 1857, in which the classification of the Mammalia by

cerebral characters was proposed. In spite of the fact that men and apes

are placed in distinct Sub-Classes, Owen speaks (in the foot-note of

which Huxley made such telling effect) of the determination of the

difference between Homo and Pithecus as the anatomist's difficulty. (See

Letter 119.))

July 5th, 1857.

What a capital number of the "Linnean Journal!" Owen's is a grand paper;

but I cannot swallow Man making a division as distinct from a chimpanzee

as an Ornithorhynchus from a horse; I wonder what a chimpanzee would say

to this? (163/2. According to Owen the sub-class Archencephala contains

only the genus Homo: the Gyrencephala contains both chimpanzee and

horse, the Lyencephala contains Ornithorhynchus.)

LETTER 164. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down [February?] 26th, 1863.

I have just finished with very great interest "Man's Place." (164/1.

"Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," 1863 (preface dated January

1863).) I never fail to admire the clearness and condensed vigour of

your style, as one calls it, but really of your thought. I have no

criticisms; nor is it likely that I could have. But I think you could

have added some interesting matter on the character or disposition of

the young ourangs which have been kept in France and England. I should

have thought you might have enlarged a little on the later embryological

changes in man and on his rudimentary structure, tail as compared with

tail of higher monkeys, intermaxillary bone, false ribs, and I daresay

other points, such as muscles of ears, etc., etc. I was very much

struck with admiration at the opening pages of Part II. (and oh! what a

delicious sneer, as good as a dessert, at page 106) (164/2. Huxley, op.

cit., page 106. After saying that "there is but one hypothesis regarding

the origin of species of animals in general which has any scientific

existence--that propounded by Mr. Darwin," and after a few words on

Lamarck, he goes on: "And though I have heard of the announcement of a

formula touching 'the ordained continuous becoming of organic forms,' it

is obvious that it is the first duty of a hypothesis to be intelligible,

and that a qua-qua-versal proposition of this kind, which may be read

backwards or forwards, or sideways, with exactly the same amount of

significance, does not really exist, though it may seem to do so." The

"formula" in question is Owen's.): but my admiration is unbounded at

pages 109 to 112. I declare I never in my life read anything grander.

Bacon himself could not have charged a few paragraphs with more

condensed and cutting sense than you have done. It is truly grand. I

regret extremely that you could not, or did not, end your book (not that

I mean to say a word against the Geological History) with these pages.

With a book, as with a fine day, one likes it to end with a glorious

sunset. I congratulate you on its publication; but do not be

disappointed if it does not sell largely: parts are highly scientific,

and I have often remarked that the best books frequently do not get soon

appreciated: certainly large sale is no proof of the highest merit. But

I hope it may be widely distributed; and I am rejoiced to see in your

note to Miss Rhadamanthus (164/3. This refers to Mr. Darwin's daughter

(now Mrs. Litchfield), whom Mr. Huxley used to laugh at for the severity

of her criticisms.) that a second thousand is called for of the little

book. What a letter that is of Owen's in the "Athenaeum" (164/4. A

letter by Owen in the "Athenaeum," February 21st, 1863, replying to

strictures on his treatment of the brain question, which had appeared

in Lyell's "Antiquity of Man."); how cleverly he will utterly muddle and

confound the public. Indeed he quite muddled me, till I read again your

"concise statement" (164/5. This refers to a section (pages 113-18) in

"Man's Place in Nature," headed "A succinct History of the Controversy

respecting the Cerebral Structure of Man and the Apes." Huxley follows

the question from Owen's attempt to classify the mammalia by cerebral

characters, published by the "Linn. Soc." in 1857, up to his revival of

the subject at the Cambridge meeting of the British Association in 1862.

It is a tremendous indictment of Owen, and seems to us to conclude

not unfittingly with a citation from Huxley's article in the "Medical

Times," October 11th, 1862. Huxley here points out that special

investigations have been made into the question at issue "during the

last two years" by Allen Thomson, Rolleston, Marshall, Flower, Schroeder

van der Kolk and Vrolik, and that "all these able and conscientious

observers" have testified to the accuracy of his statements, "while not

a single anatomist, great or small, has supported Professor Owen." He

sums up the case once more, and concludes: "The question has thus become

one of personal veracity. For myself I will accept no other issue than

this, grave as it is, to the present controversy.") (which is capitally

clear), and then I saw that my suspicion was true that he has entirely

changed his ground to size of Brain. How candid he shows himself to have

taken the slipped Brain! (164/6. Owen in the "Athenaeum," February 21st,

1863, admits that in the brain which he used in illustration of his

statements "the cerebral hemispheres had glided forward and apart behind

so as to expose a portion of the cerebellum.") I am intensely curious

to see whether Lyell will answer. (164/7. Lyell's answer was in the

"Athenaeum" March 7th, 1863.) Lyell has been, I fear, rather rash to

enter on a subject on which he of course knows nothing by himself. By

heavens, Owen will shake himself, when he sees what an antagonist he has

made for himself in you. With hearty admiration, Farewell.

I am fearfully disappointed at Lyell's excessive caution (164/8. In the

"Antiquity of Man": see "Life and Letters," III., page 8.) in expressing

any judgment on Species or [on the] origin of Man.

LETTER 165. TO JOHN SCOTT. Down, March 6th, 1863.

I thank you for your criticisms on the "Origin," and which I have not

time to discuss; but I cannot help doubting, from your expression of

an "INNATE...selective principle," whether you fully comprehend what

is meant by Natural Selection. Certainly when you speak of weaker (i.e.

less well adapted) forms crossing with the stronger, you take a widely

different view from what I do on the struggle for existence; for such

weaker forms could not exist except by the rarest chance. With respect

to utility, reflect that 99/100ths part of the structure of each being

is due to inheritance of formerly useful structures. Pray read what I

have said on "correlation." Orchids ought to show us how ignorant we are

of what is useful. No doubt hundreds of cases could be advanced of

which no explanation could be offered; but I must stop. Your letter has

interested me much. I am very far from strong, and have great fear that

I must stop all work for a couple of months for entire rest, and leave

home. It will be ruin to all my work.

LETTER 166. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 23rd [1863].

The more I think of Falconer's letter (166/1. Published in the

"Athenaeum" April 4th, 1863, page 459. The writer asserts that Lyell did

not make it clear that certain material made use of in the "Antiquity

of Man" was supplied by the original work of Mr. Prestwich and himself.

(See "Life and Letters," III., page 19.)) the more grieved I am; he and

Prestwich (the latter at least must owe much to the "Principles") assume

an absurdly unwarrantable position with respect to Lyell. It is too

bad to treat an old hero in science thus. I can see from a note from

Falconer (about a wonderful fossil Brazilian Mammal, well called Meso-

or Typo-therium) that he expects no sympathy from me. He will end, I

hope, by being sorry. Lyell lays himself open to a slap by saying that

he would come to show his original observations, and then not distinctly

doing so; he had better only have laid claim, on this one point of man,

to verification and compilation.

Altogether, I much like Lyell's letter. But all this squabbling will

greatly sink scientific men. I have seen a sneer already in the "Times."

LETTER 167. TO H.W. BATES. At Rev. C. Langton, Hartfield, Tunbridge

Wells, April 30th [1863].

You will have received before this the note which I addressed to

Leicester, after finishing Volume I., and you will have received copies

of my little review (167/1. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1863, page 219. A

review of Bates' paper on Mimetic Butterflies.) of your paper...I have

now finished Volume II., and my opinion remains the same--that you have

written a truly admirable work (167/2. "The Naturalist on the Amazons,"

1863.), with capital original remarks, first-rate descriptions, and the

whole in a style which could not be improved. My family are now reading

the book, and admire it extremely; and, as my wife remarks, it has so

strong an air of truthfulness. I had a letter from a person the other

day, unknown to you, full of praise of the book. I do hope it may get

extensively heard of and circulated; but to a certain extent this, I

think, always depends on chance.

I suppose the clicking noise of surprise made by the Indian is that

which the end of the tongue, applied to the palate of the mouth and

suddenly withdrawn, makes?

I have not written since receiving your note of April 20th, in which

you confided in me and told me your prospects. I heartily wish they were

better, and especially more certain; but with your abilities and powers

of writing it will be strange if you cannot add what little you require

for your income. I am glad that you have got a retired and semi-rural

situation. What a grand ending you give to your book, contrasting

civilisation and wild life! I quite regret that I have finished it:

every evening it was a real treat to me to have my half-hour in the

grand Amazonian forest, and picture to myself your vivid descriptions.

There are heaps of facts of value to me in a natural history point

of view. It was a great misfortune that you were prevented giving the

discussion on species. But you will, I hope, be able to give your views

and facts somewhere else.

LETTER 168. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 15th [1863].

Your letter received this morning interested me more than even most of

your letters, and that is saying a good deal. I must scribble a little

on several points. About Lyell and species--you put the whole case, I

do believe, when you say that he is "half-hearted and whole-headed."

(168/1. Darwin's disappointment with the cautious point of view taken

up by Lyell in the "Antiquity of Man" is illustrated in the "Life and

Letters," III., pages 11, 13. See also Letter 164, page 239.) I wrote

to A. Gray that, when I saw such men as Lyell and he refuse to judge,

it put me in despair, and that I sometimes thought I should prefer that

Lyell had judged against modification of species rather than profess

inability to decide; and I left him to apply this to himself. I am

heartily rejoiced to hear that you intend to try to bring L. and F.

(168/2. Falconer claimed that Lyell had not "done justice to the part he

took in resuscitating the cave question." See "Life and Letters," III.,

page 14.) together again; but had you not better wait till they are a

little cooled? You will do Science a real good service. Falconer never

forgave Lyell for taking the Purbeck bones from him and handing them

over to Owen.

With respect to island floras, if I understand rightly, we differ almost

solely how plants first got there. I suppose that at long intervals,

from as far back as later Tertiary periods to the present time, plants

occasionally arrived (in some cases, perhaps, aided by different

currents from existing currents and by former islands), and that these

old arrivals have survived little modified on the islands, but have

become greatly modified or become extinct on the continent. If I

understand, you believe that all islands were formerly united to

continents, and then received all their plants and none since; and that

on the islands they have undergone less extinction and modification than

on the continent. The number of animal forms on islands, very closely

allied to those on continents, with a few extremely distinct and

anomalous, does not seem to me well to harmonise with your supposed view

of all having formerly arrived or rather having been left together on

the island.

LETTER 169. TO ASA GRAY. Down, May 31st [1863?].

I was very glad to receive your review (169/1. The review on De

Candolle's work on the Oaks (A. Gray's "Scientific Papers," I., page

130).) of De Candolle a week ago. It seems to me excellent, and you

speak out, I think, more plainly in favour of derivation of species than

hitherto, though doubtfully about Natural Selection. Grant the first,

I am easy about the second. Do you not consider such cases as all the

orchids next thing to a demonstration against Heer's view of species

arising suddenly by monstrosities?--it is impossible to imagine so many

co-adaptations being formed all by a chance blow. Of course creationists

would cut the enigma.

LETTER 170. TO T.H. HUXLEY. June 27th [1863?]

What are you doing now? I have never yet got hold of the "Edinburgh

Review," in which I hear you are well abused. By the way, I heard

lately from Asa Gray that Wyman was delighted at "Man's Place." (170/1.

"Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," by T.H. Huxley, 1863.) I

wonder who it is who pitches weakly, but virulently into you, in the

"Anthropological Review." How quiet Owen seems! I do at last begin to

believe that he will ultimately fall in public estimation. What nonsense

he wrote in the "Athenaeum" (170/2. "Athenaeum," March 28th, 1863. See

"Life and Letters," III., page 17.) on Heterogeny! I saw in his Aye-Aye

(170/3. See Owen in the "Trans. Zool. Soc." Volume V. The sentence

referred to seems to be the following (page 95): "We know of no changes

in progress in the Island of Madagascar, necessitating a special quest

of wood-boring larvae by small quadrupeds of the Lemurine or Sciurine

types of organisation.') paper (I think) that he sneers at the manner in

which he supposes that we should account for the structure of its

limbs; and asks how we know that certain insects had increased in the

Madagascar forests. Would it not be a good rebuff to ask him how he

knows there were trees at all on the leafless plains of La Plata for his

Mylodons to tear down? But I must stop, for if I once begin about [him]

there will be no end. I was disappointed in the part about species in

Lyell. (170/4. Lyell's "Antiquity of Man." See "Life and Letters," III.,

page 11.) You and Hooker are the only two bold men. I have had a bad

spring and summer, almost constantly very unwell; but I am crawling on

in my book on "Variation under Domestication.")

LETTER 171. TO C. LYELL. Down, August 14th [1863].

Have you seen Bentham's remarks on species in his address to the Linnean

Society? (171/1. Presidential address before the Linnean Society by G.

Bentham ("Journ. Proc. Linn. Soc." Volume VII., page xi., 1864).) they

have pleased me more than anything I have read for some time. I have no

news, for I have not seen a soul for months, and have had a bad

spring and summer, but have managed to do a good deal of work. Emma is

threatening me to take me to Malvern, and perhaps I shall be compelled,

but it is a horrid waste of time; you must have enjoyed North Wales, I

should think, it is to me a most glorious country...

If you have not read Bates' book (171/2. Henry Walter Bates, "The

Naturalist on the River Amazons," 2 volumes, London, 1863. In a letter

to Bates, April 18th, 1863, Darwin writes, "It is the best work of

natural history travels ever published in England" ("Life and Letters,"

II., page 381.), I think it would interest you. He is second only to

Humboldt in describing a tropical forest. (171/3. Quoted in "Life and

Letters," II., page 381.). Talking of reading, I have never got the

"Edinburgh" (171/4. The "Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of

Man," by Sir Charles Lyell, and works by other authors reviewed in the

"Edinburgh Review." Volume CXVIII., July 1863. The writer sums up his

criticism as follows: "Glancing at the work of Sir Charles Lyell as a

whole, it leaves the impression on our minds that we have been reading

an ingenious academical thesis, rather than a work of demonstration by

an original writer...There is no argument in it, and only a few facts

which have not been stated elsewhere by Sir C. Lyell himself or by

others" (loc. cit., page 294).), in which, I suppose, you are cut up.

LETTER 172. TO H. FALCONER. December 26th [1863].

Thank you for telling me about the Pliocene mammal, which is very

remarkable; but has not Owen stated that the Pliocene badger is

identical with the recent? Such a case does indeed well show the

stupendous duration of the same form. I have not heard of Suess'

pamphlet (172/1. Probably Suess's paper "Ueber die Verschiedenheit und

die Aufeinanderfolge der tertiaren Land-faunen in der Niederung von

Wien." "Sitz.-Ber. Wien Akad." XLVII., page 306, 1863.), and should much

like to learn the title, if it can be procured; but I am on different

subjects just at present. I should rather like to see it rendered

highly probable that the process of formation of a new species was short

compared to its duration--that is, if the process was allowed to be

slow and long; the idea is new to me. Heer's view that new species are

suddenly formed like monsters, I feel a conviction from many reasons is

false.