by Astronomical Causes."), as I am as ignorant as a pig on this head.
I shall require some days to read what has been sent. I have just read
Chapter IX. (192/2. Chapter IX., "Theory of the Progressive Development
of Organic Life at Successive Geological Periods."), and like it
extremely; it all seems to me very clear, cautious, and sagacious. You
do not allude to one very striking point enough, or at all--viz., the
classes having been formerly less differentiated than they now are;
and this specialisation of classes must, we may conclude, fit them
for different general habits of life as well as the specialisation of
particular organs.
Page 162 (192/3. On page 163 Lyell refers to the absence of Cetacea
in Secondary rocks, and expresses the opinion that their absence "is a
negative fact of great significance, which seems more than any other to
render it highly improbable that we shall ever find air-breathers of
the highest class in any of the Primary strata, or in any of the older
members of the Secondary series.") I rather demur to your argument from
Cetacea: as they are such greatly modified mammals, they ought to have
come in rather later in the series. You will think me rather impudent,
but the discussion at the end of Chapter IX. on man (192/4. Loc. cit.,
pages 167-73, "Introduction of Man, to what extent a Change of the
System."), who thinks so much of his fine self, seems to me too long, or
rather superfluous, and too orthodox, except for the beneficed clergy.
LETTER 193. TO V. CARUS.
(193/1. The following letter refers to the 4th edition of the "Origin,"
1866, which was translated by Professor Carus, and formed the 3rd German
edition. Carus continued to translate Darwin's books, and a strong
bond of friendship grew up between author and translator (see "Life and
Letters," III., page 48). Nageli's pamphlet was first noticed in the 5th
English edition.)
Down, November 21st, 1866.
...With respect to a note on Nageli (193/2. "Entstehung und Begriff der
Naturhistorischen Art," an Address given before the Royal Academy of
Sciences at Munich, March 28th, 1865. See "Life and Letters," III.,
page 50, for Mr. Darwin's letter to the late Prof. Nageli.) I find on
consideration it would be too long; for so good a pamphlet ought to be
discussed at full length or not at all. He makes a mistake in supposing
that I say that useful characters are always constant. His view about
distinct species converging and acquiring the same identical structure
is by implication answered in the discussion which I have given on the
endless diversity of means for gaining the same end.
The most important point, as it seems to me, in the pamphlet is that on
the morphological characters of plants, and I find I could not answer
this without going into much detail.
The answer would be, as it seems to me, that important morphological
characters, such as the position of the ovules and the relative position
of the stamens to the ovarium (hypogynous, perigynous, etc.) are
sometimes variable in the same species, as I incidentally mention when
treating of the ray-florets in the Compositae and Umbelliferae; and I
do not see how Nageli could maintain that differences in such characters
prove an inherent tendency towards perfection. I see that I have
forgotten to say that you have my fullest consent to append any
discussion which you may think fit to the new edition. As for myself I
cannot believe in spontaneous generation, and though I expect that at
some future time the principle of life will be rendered intelligible, at
present it seems to me beyond the confines of science.
LETTER 194. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 22nd [1866?].
I suppose that you have received Hackel's book (194/1. "Generelle
Morphologie," 1866.) some time ago, as I have done. Whenever you have
had time to read through some of it, enough to judge by, I shall be very
curious to hear your judgment. I have been able to read a page or two
here and there, and have been interested and instructed by parts. But my
vague impression is that too much space is given to methodical details,
and I can find hardly any facts or detailed new views. The number of new
words, to a man like myself, weak in his Greek, is something dreadful.
He seems to have a passion for defining, I daresay very well, and for
coining new words. From my very vague notions on the book, and from its
immense size, I should fear a translation was out of the question. I see
he often quotes both of us with praise. I am sure I should like the book
much, if I could read it straight off instead of groaning and swearing
at each sentence. I have not yet had time to read your Physiology
(194/2. "Lessons in Elementary Physiology," 1866.) book, except one
chapter; but I have just re-read your book on "Man's Place, etc.," and
I think I admire it more this second time even than the first. I doubt
whether you will ever have time, but if ever you have, do read the
chapter on hybridism in the new edition of the "Origin" (194/3. Fourth
Edition (1866).), for I am very anxious to make you think less seriously
on that difficulty. I have improved the chapter a good deal, I think,
and have come to more definite views. Asa Gray and Fritz Muller (the
latter especially) think that the new facts on illegitimate offspring of
dimorphic plants, throw much indirect light on the subject. Now that
I have worked up domestic animals, I am convinced of the truth of
the Pallasian (194/4. See Letter 80.) view of loss of sterility under
domestication, and this seems to me to explain much. But I had no
intention, when I began this note, of running on at such length on
hybridism; but you have been Objector-General on this head.
LETTER 195. TO T. RIVERS.
(195/1. For another letter of Mr. Darwin's to him see "Life and
Letters," III., page 57.)
Down, December 23rd [1866?].
I do not know whether you will forgive a stranger addressing you.
My name may possibly be known to you. I am now writing a book on the
variation of animals and plants under domestication; and there is one
little piece of information which it is more likely that you could give
me than any man in the world, if you can spare half an hour from your
professional labours, and are inclined to be so kind. I am collecting
all accounts of what some call "sports," that is, of what I shall call
"bud-variations," i.e. a moss-rose suddenly appearing on a Provence
rose--a nectarine on a peach, etc. Now, what I want to know, and
which is not likely to be recorded in print, is whether very slight
differences, too slight to be worth propagating, thus appear suddenly
by buds. As every one knows, in raising seedlings you may have every
gradation from individuals identical with the parent, to slight
varieties, to strongly marked varieties. Now, does this occur with
buds or do only rather strongly marked varieties thus appear at rare
intervals of time by buds? (195/2. Mr. Rivers could not give a decided
answer, but he did not remember to have seen slight bud-variations. The
question is discussed in "Variation under Domestication," Edition II.,
Volume I., page 443.) I should be most grateful for information. I may
add that if you have observed in your enormous experience any remarkable
"bud-variations," and could spare time to inform me, and allow me to
quote them on your authority, it would be the greatest favour. I
feel sure that these "bud-variations" are most interesting to any one
endeavouring to make out what little can be made out on the obscure
subject of variation.
LETTER 196. TO T. RIVERS. Down, January 7th [1867?].
I thank you much for your letter and the parcel of shoots. The case
of the yellow plum is a treasure, and is now safely recorded on your
authority in its proper place, in contrast with A. Knight's case of
the yellow magnum bonum sporting into red. (196/1. See "Variation
under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 399.) I could see no
difference in the shoots, except that those of the yellow were thicker,
and I presume that this is merely accidental: as you do not mention it,
I further presume that there are no further differences in leaves or
flowers of the two plums. I am very glad to hear about the yellow ash,
and that you yourself have seen the jessamine case. I must confess that
I hardly fully believed in it; but now I do, and very surprising it is.
In an old French book, published in Amsterdam in 1786 (I think), there
is an account, apparently authentic and attested by the writer as an
eye-witness, of hyacinth bulbs of two colours being cut in two and
grafted, and they sent up single stalks with differently coloured
flowers on the two sides, and some flowers parti-coloured. I once
thought of offering 5 pounds reward in the "Cottage Gardener" for such a
plant; but perhaps it would seem too foolish. No instructions are given
when to perform the operation; I have tried two or three times, and
utterly failed. I find that I have a grand list of "bud-variations," and
to-morrow shall work up such cases as I have about rose-sports, which
seem very numerous, and which I see you state to occur comparatively
frequently.
When a person is very good-natured he gets much pestered--a discovery
which I daresay you have made, or anyhow will soon make; for I do want
very much to know whether you have sown seed of any moss-roses, and
whether the seedlings were moss-roses. (196/2. Moss-roses can be raised
from seed ("Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page
405.) Has a common rose produced by SEED a moss-rose?
If any light comes to you about very slight changes in the buds, pray
have the kindness to illuminate me. I have cases of seven or eight
varieties of the peach which have produced by "bud-variation"
nectarines, and yet only one single case (in France) of a peach
producing another closely similar peach (but later in ripening). How
strange it is that a great change in the peach should occur not rarely
and slighter changes apparently very rarely! How strange that no case
seems recorded of new apples or pears or apricots by "bud-variation"!
How ignorant we are! But with the many good observers now living our
children's children will be less ignorant, and that is a comfort.
LETTER 197. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 7th [1867].
Very many thanks for your letter, which has told me exactly what I
wanted to know. I shall give up all thoughts of trying to get the book
(197/1. Hackel's "Generelle Morphologie," 1866. See "Life and Letters,"
III., pages 67, 68.) translated, for I am well convinced that it would
be hopeless without too great an outlay. I much regret this, as I should
think the work would be useful, and I am sure it would be to me, as I
shall never be able to wade through more than here and there a page of
the original. To all people I cannot but think that the number of new
terms would be a great evil. I must write to him. I suppose you know
his address, but in case you do not, it is "to care of Signor Nicolaus
Krohn, Madeira." I have sent the MS. of my big book (197/2. "The
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.), and
horridly, disgustingly big it will be, to the printers, but I do not
suppose it will be published, owing to Murray's idea on seasons, till
next November. I am thinking of a chapter on Man, as there has lately
been so much said on Natural Selection in relation to man. I have not
seen the Duke's (or Dukelet's? how can you speak so of a living real
Duke?) book, but must get it from Mudie, as you say he attacks us.
(197/3. "The Reign of Law" (1867), by the late Duke of Argyll. See "Life
and Letters," III., page 65.)
P.S.--Nature never made species mutually sterile by selection, nor will
men.
LETTER 197. TO E. HACKEL. Down, January 8th [1867].
I received some weeks ago your great work (198/1. "Generelle
Morphologie," 1866.); I have read several parts, but I am too poor a
German scholar and the book is too large for me to read it all. I cannot
tell you how much I regret this, for I am sure that nearly the whole
would interest me greatly, and I have already found several parts very
useful, such as the discussion on cells and on the different forms of
reproduction. I feel sure, after considering the subject deliberately
and after consulting with Huxley, that it would be hopeless to endeavour
to get a publisher to print an English translation; the work is too
profound and too long for our English countrymen. The number of new
terms would also, I am sure, tell much against its sale; and, indeed,
I wish for my own sake that you had printed a glossary of all the
new terms which you use. I fully expect that your book will be highly
successful in Germany, and the manner in which you often refer to me in
your text, and your dedication and the title, I shall always look at as
one of the greatest honours conferred on me during my life. (198/2. As
regards the dedication and title this seems a strong expression. The
title is "Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzuge
der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft mechanisch begrundet durch die von
Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie." The dedication of the
second volume is "Den Begrundern der Descendenz-Theorie, den denkenden
Naturforschern, Charles Darwin, Wolfgang Goethe, Jean Lamarck widmet
diese Grundzuge der Allgemeinen Entwickelungsgeschichte in vorzuglicher
Verehrung, der Verfasser.")
I sincerely hope that you have had a prosperous expedition, and have met
with many new and interesting animals. If you have spare time I should
much like to hear what you have been doing and observing. As for
myself, I have sent the MS. of my book on domestic animals, etc., to the
printers. It turns out to be much too large; it will not be published,
I suppose, until next November. I find that we have discussed several
of the same subjects, and I think we agree on most points fairly well.
I have lately heard several times from Fritz Muller, but he seems now
chiefly to be working on plants. I often think of your visit to this
house, which I enjoyed extremely, and it will ever be to me a real
pleasure to remember our acquaintance. From what I heard in London I
think you made many friends there. Shall you return through England?
If so, and you can spare the time, we shall all be delighted to see you
here again.
LETTER 199. TO T. RIVERS. Down, January 11th [1867?].
How rich and valuable a letter you have most kindly sent me! The case
of Baronne Prevost (199/1. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition
II., Volume I., page 406. Mr. Rivers had a new French rose with a
delicate smooth stem, pale glaucous leaves and striped flesh-coloured
flowers; on branches thus characterised there appeared "the famous old
rose called 'Baronne Prevost,'" with its stout thorny stem and uniform
rich-coloured double flowers.), with its different shoots, foliage,
spines, and flowers, will be grand to quote. I am extremely glad to hear
about the seedling moss-roses. That case of a seedling like a Scotch
rose, unless you are sure that no Scotch rose grew near (and it is
unlikely that you can remember), must, one would think, have been a
cross.
I have little compunction for being so troublesome--not more than a
grand Inquisitor has in torturing a heretic--for am I not doing a real
good public service in screwing crumbs of knowledge out of your wealth
of information?
P.S. Since the above was written I have read your paper in the
"Gardeners' Chronicle": it is admirable, and will, I know, be a treasure
to me. I did not at all know how strictly the character of so many
flowers is inherited.
On my honour, when I began this note I had no thought of troubling you
with a question; but you mention one point so interesting, and which I
have had occasion to notice, that I must supplicate for a few more facts
to quote on your authority. You say that you have one or two seedling
peaches (199/2. "On raising Peaches, Nectarines, and other Fruits from
Seed." By Thomas Rivers, Sawbridgeworth.--"Gard. Chron." 1866, page
731.) approaching very nearly to thick-fleshed almonds (I know about A.
Knight and the Italian hybrid cases). Now, did any almond grow near your
mother peach? But especially I want to know whether you remember what
shape the stone was, whether flattened like that of an almond; this,
botanically, seems the most important distinction. I earnestly wish to
quote this. Was the flesh at all sweet?
Forgive if you can.
Have you kept these seedling peaches? if you would give me next summer a
fruit, I want to have it engraved.
LETTER 200. TO I. ANDERSON-HENRY. May 22nd [1867].
You are so kind as to offer to lend me Maillet's (200/1. For De Maillet
see Mr. Huxley's review on "The Origin of Species" in the "Westminster
Review," 1860, reprinted in "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 314. De Maillet's
evolutionary views were published after his death in 1748 under the name
of Telliamed (De Maillet spelt backwards).) work, which I have often
heard of, but never seen. I should like to have a look at it, and would
return it to you in a short time. I am bound to read it, as my former
friend and present bitter enemy Owen generally ranks me and Maillet as a
pair of equal fools.
LETTER 201. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 4th [1867].
You have done me a very great service in sending me the pages of the
"Farmer." I do not know whether you wish it returned; but I will keep
it unless I hear that you want it. Old I. Anderson-Henry passes a
magnificent but rather absurd eulogium on me; but the point of such
extreme value in my eyes is Mr. Traill's (201/1. Mr. Traill's results
are given at page 420 of "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I.
In the "Life and Letters of G.J. Romanes," 1896, an interesting
correspondence is published with Mr. Darwin on this subject. The plan
of the experiments suggested to Romanes was to raise seedlings from
graft-hybrids: if the seminal offspring of plants hybridised by grafting
should show the hybrid character, it would be striking evidence in
favour of pangenesis. The experiment, however, did not succeed.)
statement that he made a mottled mongrel by cutting eyes through
and joining two kinds of potatoes. (201/2. For an account of similar
experiments now in progress, see a "Note on some Grafting Experiments"
by R. Biffen in the "Annals of Botany," Volume XVI., page 174, 1902.) I
have written to him for full information, and then I will set to work
on a similar trial. It would prove, I think, to demonstration that
propagation by buds and by the sexual elements are essentially the same
process, as pangenesis in the most solemn manner declares to be the
case.
LETTER 202. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 12th [1867?].
We come up on Saturday, the 15th, for a week. I want much to see you for
a short time to talk about my youngest boy and the School of Mines. I
know it is rather unreasonable, but you must let me come a little after
10 o'clock on Sunday morning, the 16th. If in any way inconvenient, send
me a line to "6, Queen Anne Street W.,"; but if I do not hear, I will
(stomacho volente) call, but I will not stay very long and spoil your
whole morning as a holiday. Will you turn two or three times in your
mind this question: what I called "pangenesis" means that each cell
throws off an atom of its contents or a gemmule, and that these
aggregated form the true ovule or bud, etc.? Now I want to know
whether I could not invent a better word. "Cyttarogenesis" (202/1. From
kuttaros, a bee's-cell: cytogenesis would be a natural form of the word
from kutos.)--i.e. cell-genesis--is more true and expressive, but long.
"Atomogenesis" sounds rather better, I think, but an "atom" is an object
which cannot be divided; and the term might refer to the origin of
atoms of inorganic matter. I believe I like "pangenesis" best, though
so indefinite; and though my wife says it sounds wicked, like pantheism;
but I am so familiar now with this word, that I cannot judge. I
supplicate you to help me.
LETTER 203. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, October, 12th and 13th [1867].
I ordered the journal (203/1. "Quarterly Journal of Science," October,
1867, page 472. A review of the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of Law.") a long
time ago, but by some oversight received it only yesterday, and read it.
You will think my praise not worth having, from being so indiscriminate;
but if I am to speak the truth, I must say I admire every word. You have
just touched on the points which I particularly wished to see noticed.
I am glad you had the courage to take up Angraecum (203/2. Angraecum
sesquipedale, a Madagascan orchid, with a whiplike nectary, 11 to
12 inches in length, which, according to Darwin ("Fertilisation of
Orchids," Edition II., page 163), is adapted to the visits of a moth
with a proboscis of corresponding length. He points out that there is no
difficulty in believing in the existence of such a moth as F. Muller
has described ("Nature," 1873, page 223)--a Brazilian sphinx-moth with a
trunk of 10 to 11 inches in length. Moreover, Forbes has given evidence
to show that such an insect does exist in Madagascar ("Nature," VIII.,
1873, page 121). The case of Angraecum was put forward by the Duke
of Argyll as being necessarily due to the personal contrivance of the
Deity. Mr. Wallace (page 476) shows that both proboscis and nectary
might be increased in length by means of Natural Selection. It may be
added that Hermann Muller has shown good grounds for believing that
mutual specialisation of this kind is beneficial both to insect and
plant.) after the Duke's attack; for I believe the principle in this
case may be widely applied. I like the figure, but I wish the artist had
drawn a better sphinx. With respect to beauty, your remarks on hideous
objects and on flowers not being made beautiful except when of practical
use to them, strike me as very good. On this one point of beauty I
can hardly think that the Duke was quite candid. I have used in the
concluding paragraph of my present book precisely the same argument as
you have, even bringing in the bull-dog (203/3. "Variation of Animals
and Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page 431: "Did He cause the frame
and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be
formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull
for man's brutal sport?"), with respect to variations not having been
specially ordained. Your metaphor of the river (203/4. See Wallace,
op. cit., pages 477-8. He imagines an observer examining a great
river-system, and finding everywhere adaptations which reveal the design
of the Creator. "He would see special adaptation to the wants of man
in broad, quiet, navigable rivers, through fertile alluvial plains that
would support a large population, while the rocky streams and mountain
torrents were confined to those sterile regions suitable only for
a small population of shepherds and herdsmen.') is new to me, and
admirable; but your other metaphor, in which you compare classification
and complex machines, does not seem to me quite appropriate, though
I cannot point out what seems deficient. The point which seems to
me strong is that all naturalists admit that there is a natural
classification, and it is this which descent explains. I wish you had
insisted a little more against the "North British" (203/5. At page 485
Mr. Wallace deals with Fleeming Jenkin's review in the "North British
Review," 1867. The review strives to show that there are strict limits
to variation, since the most rigorous and long-continued selection
does not indefinitely increase such a quality as the fleetness of a
racehorse. On this Mr. Wallace remarks that "this argument fails to meet
the real question," which is, not whether indefinite change is possible,
"but whether such differences as do occur in nature could have been
produced by the accumulation of variations by selection.") on the
reviewer assuming that each variation which appears is a strongly marked
one; though by implication you have made this very plain. Nothing in
your whole article has struck me more than your view with respect to the
limit of fleetness in the racehorse and other such cases: I shall try
and quote you on this head in the proof of my concluding chapter. I
quite missed this explanation, though in the case of wheat I hit upon
something analogous. I am glad you praise the Duke's book, for I was
much struck with it. The part about flight seemed to me at first very
good; but as the wing is articulated by a ball-and-socket joint, I
suspect the Duke would find it very difficult to give any reason against
the belief that the wing strikes the air more or less obliquely. I have
been very glad to see your article and the drawing of the butterfly
in "Science Gossip." By the way, I cannot but think that you push
protection too far in some cases, as with the stripes on the tiger. I
have also this morning read an excellent abstract in the "Gardeners'
Chronicle" of your paper on nests. (203/6. An abstract of a paper on
"Birds' Nests and Plumage," read before the British Association: see
"Gard. Chron." 1867, page 1047.) I was not by any means fully converted
by your letter, but I think now I am so; and I hope it will be published
somewhere in extenso. It strikes me as a capital generalisation, and
appears to me even more original than it did at first...
I have finished Volume I. of my book ["Variation of Animals and
Plants"], and I hope the whole will be out by the end of November. If
you have the patience to read it through, which is very doubtful, you
will find, I think, a large accumulation of facts which will be of
service to you in future papers; and they could not be put to better
use, for you certainly are a master in the noble art of reasoning.
LETTER 204. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, October 3rd [no date].
I know you have no time for speculative correspondence; and I did not
in the least expect an answer to my last. But I am very glad to have
had it, for in my eclectic work the opinions of the few good men are of
great value to me.
I knew, of course, of the Cuvierian view of classification (204/1.
Cuvier proved that "animals cannot be arranged in a single series, but
that there are several distinct plans of organisation to be observed
among them, no one of which, in its highest and most complicated
modification, leads to any of the others" (Huxley's "Darwiniana," page
215).); but I think that most naturalists look for something further,
and search for "the natural system,"--"for the plan on which the Creator
has worked," etc., etc. It is this further element which I believe to be
simply genealogical.
But I should be very glad to have your answer (either when we meet or by
note) to the following case, taken by itself, and not allowing yourself
to look any further than to the point in question. Grant all races of
man descended from one race--grant that all the structure of each race
of man were perfectly known--grant that a perfect table of the descent
of each race was perfectly known--grant all this, and then do you not
think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical
one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to
another, as it would have stood, if collocated by structure alone?
Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races and
their pedigrees would go together.
I should like to hear what you would say on this purely theoretical
case.
It might be asked why is development so all-potent in classification,
as I fully admit it is? I believe it is because it depends on, and best
betrays, genealogical descent; but this is too large a point to enter
on.
LETTER 205. TO C. LYELL. Down, December 7th [1867].
I send by this post the article in the Victorian Institute with respect
to frogs' spawn. If you remember in your boyhood having ever tried to
take a small portion out of the water, you will remember that it is most
difficult. I believe all the birds in the world might alight every day
on the spawn of batrachians, and never transport a single ovum. With
respect to the young of molluscs, undoubtedly if the bird to which they
were attached alighted on the sea, they would be instantly killed; but
a land-bird would, I should think, never alight except under dire
necessity from fatigue. This, however, has been observed near Heligoland
(205/1. Instances are recorded by Gatke in his "Heligoland as an
Ornithological Observatory" (translated by Rudolph Rosenstock,
Edinburgh, 1895) of land-birds, such as thrushes, buntings, finches,
etc., resting for a short time on the surface of the water. The
author describes observations made by himself about two miles west of
Heligoland (page 129).); and land-birds, after resting for a time on the
tranquil sea, have been seen to rise and continue their flight. I cannot
give you the reference about Heligoland without much searching. This
alighting on the sea may aid you in your unexpected difficulty of the
too-easy diffusion of land-molluscs by the agency of birds. I much
enjoyed my morning's talk with you.
LETTER 206. TO F. HILDEBRAND. Down, January 5th [1868].
I thank you for your letter, which has quite delighted me. I sincerely
congratulate you on your success in making a graft-hybrid (206/1. Prof.
Hildebrand's paper is in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1868: the substance is
given in "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page
420.), for I believe it to be a most important observation. I trust that
you will publish full details on this subject and on the direct action
of pollen (206/2. See Prof. Hildebrand, "Bot. Zeitung," 1868, and
"Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 430.
A yellow-grained maize was fertilised with pollen from a brown-grained
one; the result was that ears were produced bearing both yellow and
dark-coloured grains.): I hope that you will be so kind as to send me a
copy of your paper. If I had succeeded in making a graft-hybrid of the
potato, I had intended to raise seedlings from the graft-hybrid and
from the two parent-forms (excluding insects) and carefully compare the
offspring. This, however, would be difficult on account of the sterility
and variability of the potato. When in the course of a few months you
receive my second volume (206/3. This sentence may be paraphrased--"When
you receive my book and read the second volume."), you will see why
I think these two subjects so important. They have led me to form
a hypothesis on the various forms of reproduction, development,
inheritance, etc., which hypothesis, I believe, will ultimately be
accepted, though how it will be now received I am very doubtful.
Once again I congratulate you on your success.
LETTER 207. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 6th [1868].
Many thanks about names of plants, synonyms, and male flowers--all that
I wanted.
I have been glad to see Watson's letter, and am sorry he is a renegade
about Natural Selection. It is, as you say, characteristic, with the
final fling at you.
His difficulty about the difference between the two genera of St. Helena
Umbellifers is exactly the same as what Nageli has urged in an able
pamphlet (207/1. "Ueber Entstehung und Begriff der naturhist. Art."
"Sitz. der K. Bayer. Akad. Der Wiss. zu Munchen," 1865. Some of Nageli's
points are discussed in the "Origin," Edition V., page 151.), and who
in consequence maintains that there is some unknown innate tendency to
progression in all organisms. I said in a letter to him that of course I
could not in the least explain such cases; but that they did not seem
to me of overwhelming force, as long as we are quite ignorant of the
meaning of such structures, whether they are of any service to the
plants, or inevitable consequences of modifications in other parts.
I cannot understand what Watson means by the "counter-balance in nature"
to divergent variation. There is the counterbalance of crossing,
of which my present work daily leads me to see more and more the
efficiency; but I suppose he means something very different. Further, I
believe variation to be divergent solely because diversified forms can
best subsist. But you will think me a bore.
I enclose half a letter from F. Muller (which please return) for the
chance of your liking to see it; though I have doubted much about
sending it, as you are so overworked. I imagine the Solanum-like flower
is curious.
I heard yesterday to my joy that Dr. Hildebrand has been experimenting
on the direct action of pollen on the mother-plant with success. He has
also succeeded in making a true graft-hybrid between two varieties of
potatoes, in which I failed. I look at this as splendid for pangenesis,
as being strong evidence that bud-reproduction and seminal reproduction
do not essentially differ.
My book is horribly delayed, owing to the accursed index-maker. (207/2.
Darwin thoroughly appreciated the good work put into the index of "The
Variation of Animals and Plants.") I have almost forgotten it!
LETTER 208. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 30th [1868].
Most sincere thanks for your kind congratulations. I never received a
note from you in my life without pleasure; but whether this will be so
after you have read pangenesis (208/1. In Volume II. of "Animals and
Plants, 1868.), I am very doubtful. Oh Lord, what a blowing up I may
receive! I write now partly to say that you must not think of looking
at my book till the summer, when I hope you will read pangenesis, for I
care for your opinion on such a subject more than for that of any other
man in Europe. You are so terribly sharp-sighted and so confoundedly
honest! But to the day of my death I will always maintain that you have
been too sharp-sighted on hybridism; and the chapter on the subject in
my book I should like you to read: not that, as I fear, it will produce
any good effect, and be hanged to you.
I rejoice that your children are all pretty well. Give Mrs. Huxley the
enclosed (208/2. Queries on Expression.), and ask her to look out when
one of her children is struggling and just going to burst out crying. A
dear young lady near here plagued a very young child for my sake, till
it cried, and saw the eyebrows for a second or two beautifully oblique,
just before the torrent of tears began.
The sympathy of all our friends about George's success (it is the young
Herald) (208/3. His son George was Second Wrangler in 1868; as a boy
he was an enthusiast in heraldry.) has been a wonderful pleasure to
us. George has not slaved himself, which makes his success the more
satisfactory. Farewell, my dear Huxley, and do not kill yourself with
work.
(209/1. The following group of letters deals with the problem of the
causes of the sterility of hybrids. Mr. Darwin's final view is given in
the "Origin," sixth edition (page 384, edition 1900). He acknowledges
that it would be advantageous to two incipient species, if by
physiological isolation due to mutual sterility, they could be kept from
blending: but he continues, "After mature reflection it seems to me
that this could not have been effected through Natural Selection." And
finally he concludes (page 386):--
"But it would be superfluous to discuss this question in detail; for
with plants we have conclusive evidence that the sterility of crossed
species must be due to some principle quite independent of Natural
Selection. Both Gartner and Kolreuter have proved that in genera
including numerous species, a series can be formed from species which
when crossed yield fewer and fewer seeds, to species which never produce
a single seed, but yet are affected by the pollen of certain other
species, for the germen swells. It is here manifestly impossible to
select the more sterile individuals, which have already ceased to
yield seeds; so that this acme of sterility, when the germen alone is
affected, cannot have been gained through selection; and from the laws
governing the various grades of sterility being so uniform throughout
the animal and vegetable kingdoms, we may infer that the cause, whatever
it may be, is the same or nearly the same in all cases."
Mr. Wallace, on the other hand, still adheres to his view: see his
"Darwinism," 1889, page 174, and for a more recent statement see page
292, note 1, Letter 211, and page 299.
The discussion of 1868 began with a letter from Mr. Wallace, written
towards the end of February, giving his opinion on the "Variation of
Animals and Plants;" the discussion on the sterility of hybrids is at
page 185, Volume II., of the first edition.)
LETTER 209. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. February 1868.
The only parts I have yet met with where I somewhat differ from your
views, are in the chapter on the causes of variability, in which I think
several of your arguments are unsound: but this is too long a subject
to go into now. Also, I do not see your objection to sterility between
allied species having been aided by Natural Selection. It appears to me
that, given a differentiation of a species into two forms, each of which
was adapted to a special sphere of existence, every slight degree of
sterility would be a positive advantage, not to the individuals who
were sterile, but to each form. If you work it out, and suppose the
two incipient species a...b to be divided into two groups, one of which
contains those which are fertile when the two are crossed, the other
being slightly sterile, you will find that the latter will certainly
supplant the former in the struggle for existence; remembering that you
have shown that in such a cross the offspring would be more vigorous
than the pure breed, and therefore would certainly soon supplant them,
and as these would not be so well adapted to any special sphere of
existence as the pure species a and b, they would certainly in their
turn give way to a and b.
LETTER 210. TO A.R. WALLACE. February 27th [1868].
I shall be very glad to hear, at some future day, your criticisms on
the "causes of variability." Indeed, I feel sure that I am right about
sterility and Natural Selection. Two of my grown-up children who are
acute reasoners have two or three times at intervals tried to prove
me wrong; and when your letter came they had another try, but ended
by coming back to my side. I do not quite understand your case, and
we think that a word or two is misplaced. I wish some time you would
consider the case under the following point of view. If sterility is
caused or accumulated through Natural Selection, then, as every degree
exists up to absolute barrenness, Natural Selection must have the power
of increasing it. Now take two species A and B, and assume that they
are (by any means) half-sterile, i.e., produce half the full number of
offspring. Now try and make (by Natural Selection) A and B absolutely
sterile when crossed, and you will find how difficult it is. I
grant, indeed it is certain, that the degree of the sterility of the
individuals of A and B will vary; but any such extra-sterile individuals
of, we will say A, if they should hereafter breed with other individuals
of A, will bequeath no advantage to their progeny, by which these
families will tend to increase in number over other families of A, which
are not more sterile when crossed with B. But I do not know that I
have made this any clearer than in the chapter in my book. It is a most
difficult bit of reasoning, which I have gone over and over again on
paper with diagrams. (210/1. This letter appeared in "Life and Letters,"
III., page 80.)
LETTER 211. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. March 1st, 1868.
I beg to enclose what appears to me a demonstration on your own
principles, that Natural Selection could produce sterility of hybrids.
If it does not convince you, I shall be glad if you will point out
where the fallacy lies. I have taken the two cases of a slight sterility
overcoming perfect fertility, and of a perfect sterility overcoming a
partial fertility,--the beginning and end of the process. You admit that
variations in fertility and sterility occur, and I think you will also
admit that if I demonstrate that a considerable amount of sterility
would be advantageous to a variety, that is sufficient proof that the
slightest variation in that direction would be useful also, and would go
on accumulating.
1. Let there be a species which has varied into two forms, each adapted
to existing conditions (211/1. "Existing conditions," means of course
new conditions which have now come into existence. And the "two" being
both better adapted than the parent form, means that they are better
adapted each to a special environment in the same area--as one to damp,
another to dry places; one to woods, another to open grounds, etc.,
etc., as Darwin had already explained. A.R.W. (1899).) better than the
parent form, which they supplant.
2. If these two forms, which are supposed to co-exist in the same
district, do not intercross, Natural Selection will accumulate
favourable variations, till they become sufficiently well adapted to
their conditions of life and form two allied species.
3. But if these two forms freely intercross with each other and produce
hybrids which are also quite fertile inter se, then the formation of
the two distinct races or species will be retarded or perhaps entirely
prevented; for the offspring of the crossed unions will be more vigorous
owing to the cross, although less adapted to their conditions of
life than either of the pure breeds. (211/2. After "pure breeds," add
"because less specialised." A.R.W. (1899).)
4. Now let a partial sterility of some individuals of these two forms
arise when they intercross; and as this would probably be due to some
special conditions of life, we may fairly suppose it to arise in some
definite portion of the area occupied by the two forms.
5. The result is that in this area hybrids will not increase so rapidly
as before; and as by the terms of the problem the two pure forms are
better suited to the conditions of life than the hybrids, they will tend
to supplant the latter altogether whenever the struggle for existence
becomes severe.
6. We may fairly suppose, also, that as soon as any sterility appears
under natural conditions, it will be accompanied by some disinclination
to cross-unions; and this will further diminish the production of
hybrids.
7. In the other part of the area, however, where hybridism occurs
unchecked, hybrids of various degrees will soon far outnumber the parent
or pure form.
8. The first result, then, of a partial sterility of crosses appearing
in one part of the area occupied by the two forms, will be, that the
GREAT MAJORITY of the individuals will there consist of the pure forms
only, while in the rest of the area these will be in a minority,--which
is the same as saying, that the new sterile or physiological variety of
the two forms will be better suited to the conditions of existence than
the remaining portion which has not varied physiologically.
9. But when the struggle for existence becomes severe, that variety
which is best adapted to the conditions of existence always supplants
that which is imperfectly adapted; therefore by Natural Selection the
sterile varieties of the two forms will become established as the only
ones.
10. Now let a fresh series of variations in the amount of sterility and
in the disinclination to crossed unions occur,--also in certain parts
of the area: exactly the same result must recur, and the progeny of this
new physiological variety again in time occupy the whole area.
11. There is yet another consideration that supports this view. It seems
probable that the variations in amount of sterility would to some extent
concur with and perhaps depend upon the structural variations; so that
just in proportion as the two forms diverged and became better adapted
to the conditions of existence, their sterility would increase. If this
were the case, then Natural Selection would act with double strength,
and those varieties which were better adapted to survive both
structurally and physiologically, would certainly do so. (211/3. The
preceding eleven paragraphs are substantially but not verbally identical
with the statement of the argument in Mr. Wallace's "Darwinism," 1889.
Pages 179, 180, note 1.)
12. Let us now consider the more difficult case of two allied species
A, B, in the same area, half the individuals of each (As, Bs) being
absolutely sterile, the other half (Af, Bf) being partially fertile:
will As, Bs ultimately exterminate Af, Bf?
13. To avoid complication, it must be granted, that between As and Bs
no cross-unions take place, while between Af and Bf cross-unions are as
frequent as direct unions, though much less fertile. We must also leave
out of consideration crosses between As and Af, Bs and Bf, with their
various approaches to sterility, as I believe they will not affect the
final result, although they will greatly complicate the problem.
14. In the first generation there will result: 1st, The pure progeny of
As and Bs; 2nd, The pure progeny of Af and of Bf; and 3rd, The hybrid
progeny of Af, Bf.
15. Supposing that, in ordinary years, the increased constitutional
vigour of the hybrids exactly counterbalances their imperfect
adaptations to conditions, there will be in the second generation,
besides these three classes, hybrids of the second degree between the
first hybrids and Af and Bf respectively. In succeeding generations
there will be hybrids of all degrees, varying between the first hybrids
and the almost pure types of Af and Bf.
16. Now, if at first the number of individuals of As, Bs, Af and Bf
were equal, and year after year the total number continues stationary,
I think it can be proved that, while half will be the pure progeny of As
and Bs, the other half will become more and more hybridised, until the
whole will be hybrids of various degrees.
17. Now, this hybrid and somewhat intermediate race cannot be so well
adapted to the conditions of life as the two pure species, which have
been formed by the minute adaptation to conditions through Natural
Selection; therefore, in a severe struggle for existence, the hybrids
must succumb, especially as, by hypothesis, their fertility would not be
so great as that of the two pure species.
18. If we were to take into consideration the unions of As with Af and
Bs with Bf, the results would become very complicated, but it must still
lead to there being a number of pure forms entirely derived from As and
Bs, and of hybrid forms mainly derived from Af and Bf; and the result of
the struggle of these two sets of individuals cannot be doubtful.
19. If these arguments are sound, it follows that sterility may
be accumulated and increased, and finally made complete by Natural
Selection, whether the sterile varieties originate together in a
definite portion of the area occupied by the two species, or occur
scattered over the whole area. (211/4. The first part of this discussion
should be considered alone, as it is both more simple and more
important. I now believe that the utility, and therefore the cause of
sterility between species, is during the process of differentiation.
When species are fully formed, the occasional occurrence of hybrids
is of comparatively small importance, and can never be a danger to the
existence of the species. A.R.W. (1899).)
P.S.--In answer to the objection as to the unequal sterility of
reciprocal crosses ("Variation, etc." Volume II., page 186) I
reply that, as far as it went, the sterility of one cross would be
advantageous even if the other cross was fertile: and just as characters
now co-ordinated may have been separately accumulated by Natural
Selection, so the reciprocal crosses may have become sterile one at a
time.
LETTER 212. TO A.R. WALLACE. 4, Chester Place, March 17th, 1868.
(212/1. Mr. Darwin had already written a short note to Mr. Wallace
expressing a general dissent from his view.)
I do not feel that I shall grapple with the sterility argument till my
return home; I have tried once or twice, and it has made my stomach feel
as if it had been placed in a vice. Your paper has driven three of my
children half mad--one sat up till 12 o'clock over it. My second son,
the mathematician, thinks that you have omitted one almost inevitable
deduction which apparently would modify the result. He has written out
what he thinks, but I have not tried fully to understand him. I suppose
that you do not care enough about the subject to like to see what he has
written.
LETTER 212A. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, March, 24th
[1868].
I return your son's notes with my notes on them. Without going into any
details, is not this a strong general argument?
1. A species varies occasionally in two directions, but owing to their
free intercrossing the varieties never increase.
2. A change of conditions occurs which threatens the existence of the
species; but the two varieties are adapted to the changing conditions,
and if accumulated will form two new species adapted to the new
conditions.
3. Free crossing, however, renders this impossible, and so the species
is in danger of extinction.
4. If sterility would be induced, then the pure races would increase
more rapidly, and replace the old species.
5. It is admitted that partial sterility between varieties does
occasionally occur. It is admitted [that] the degree of this sterility
varies; is it not probable that Natural Selection can accumulate these
variations, and thus save the species? If Natural Selection can NOT do
this, how do species ever arise, except when a variety is isolated?
Closely allied species in distinct countries being sterile is no
difficulty; for either they diverged from a common ancestor in contact,
and Natural Selection increased the sterility, or they were isolated,
and have varied since: in which case they have been for ages influenced
by distinct conditions which may well produce sterility.
If the difficulty of grafting was as great as the difficulty of
crossing, and as regular, I admit it would be a most serious objection.
But it is not. I believe many distinct species can be grafted, while
others less distinct cannot. The regularity with which natural species
are sterile together, even when very much alike, I think is an argument
in favour of the sterility having been generally produced by Natural
Selection for the good of the species.
The other difficulty, of unequal sterility of reciprocal crosses, seems
none to me; for it is a step to more complete sterility, and as such
would be increased by selection.
LETTER 213. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 6th [1868].
I have been considering the terrible problem. Let me first say that
no man could have more earnestly wished for the success of Natural
Selection in regard to sterility than I did; and when I considered a
general statement (as in your last note) I always felt sure it could be
worked out, but always failed in detail. The cause being, as I
believe, that Natural Selection cannot effect what is not good for the
individual, including in this term a social community. It would take a
volume to discuss all the points, and nothing is so humiliating to me
as to agree with a man like you (or Hooker) on the premises and disagree
about the result.
I agree with my son's argument and not with the rejoinder. The cause of
our difference, I think, is that I look at the number of offspring as an
important element (all circumstances remaining the same) in keeping up
the average number of individuals within any area. I do not believe that
the amount of food by any means is the sole determining cause of number.
Lessened fertility is equivalent to a new source of destruction. I
believe if in one district a species produced from any cause fewer
young, the deficiency would be supplied from surrounding districts. This
applies to your Paragraph 5. (213/1. See Letter 211.) If the species
produced fewer young from any cause in every district, it would become
extinct unless its fertility were augmented through Natural Selection
(see H. Spencer).
I demur to probability and almost to possibility of Paragraph 1., as
you start with two forms within the same area, which are not mutually
sterile, and which yet have supplanted the parent-form.
(Paragraph 6.) I know of no ghost of a fact supporting belief that
disinclination to cross accompanies sterility. It cannot hold with
plants, or the lower fixed aquatic animals. I saw clearly what an
immense aid this would be, but gave it up. Disinclination to cross seems
to have been independently acquired, probably by Natural Selection; and
I do not see why it would not have sufficed to have prevented incipient
species from blending to have simply increased sexual disinclination to
cross.
(Paragraph 11.) I demur to a certain extent to amount of sterility and
structural dissimilarity necessarily going together, except indirectly
and by no means strictly. Look at vars. of pigeons, fowls, and cabbages.
I overlooked the advantage of the half-sterility of reciprocal crosses;
yet, perhaps from novelty, I do not feel inclined to admit probability
of Natural Selection having done its work so queerly.
I will not discuss the second case of utter sterility, but your
assumptions in Paragraph 13 seem to me much too complicated. I cannot
believe so universal an attribute as utter sterility between remote
species was acquired in so complex a manner. I do not agree with
your rejoinder on grafting: I fully admit that it is not so closely
restricted as crossing, but this does not seem to me to weaken the case
as one of analogy. The incapacity of grafting is likewise an invariable
attribute of plants sufficiently remote from each other, and sometimes
of plants pretty closely allied.
The difficulty of increasing the sterility through Natural Selection of
two already sterile species seems to me best brought home by considering
an actual case. The cowslip and primrose are moderately sterile, yet
occasionally produce hybrids. Now these hybrids, two or three or a
dozen in a whole parish, occupy ground which might have been occupied
by either pure species, and no doubt the latter suffer to this small
extent. But can you conceive that any individual plants of the primrose
and cowslip which happened to be mutually rather more sterile (i.e.
which, when crossed, yielded a few less seed) than usual, would profit
to such a degree as to increase in number to the ultimate exclusion of
the present primrose and cowslip? I cannot.
My son, I am sorry to say, cannot see the full force of your rejoinder
in regard to second head of continually augmented sterility. You speak
in this rejoinder, and in Paragraph 5, of all the individuals becoming
in some slight degree sterile in certain districts: if you were to admit
that by continued exposure to these same conditions the sterility would
inevitably increase, there would be no need of Natural Selection. But
I suspect that the sterility is not caused so much by any particular
conditions as by long habituation to conditions of any kind. To speak
according to pangenesis, the gemmules of hybrids are not injured, for
hybrids propagate freely by buds; but their reproductive organs are
somehow affected, so that they cannot accumulate the proper gemmules,
in nearly the same manner as the reproductive organs of a pure species
become affected when exposed to unnatural conditions.
This is a very ill-expressed and ill-written letter. Do not answer it,
unless the spirit urges you. Life is too short for so long a discussion.
We shall, I greatly fear, never agree.
LETTER 214. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, [April?]
8th, 1868.
I am sorry you should have given yourself the trouble to answer my ideas
on sterility. If you are not convinced, I have little doubt but that I
am wrong; and, in fact, I was only half convinced by my own arguments,
and I now think there is about an even chance that Natural Selection may
or may not be able to accumulate sterility. If my first proposition is
modified to the existence of a species and a variety in the same area,
it will do just as well for my argument. Such certainly do exist. They
are fertile together, and yet each maintains itself tolerably distinct.
How can this be, if there is no disinclination to crossing?
My belief certainly is that number of offspring is not so important
an element in keeping up population of a species as supply of food and
other favourable conditions; because the numbers of a species constantly
vary greatly in different parts of its own area, whereas the average
number of offspring is not a very variable element.
However, I will say no more, but leave the problem as insoluble, only
fearing that it will become a formidable weapon in the hands of the
enemies of Natural Selection.
LETTER 215. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(215/1. The following extract from a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker (dated
April 3rd, 1868) refers to his Presidential Address for the approaching
meeting of the British Association at Norwich.
Some account of Sir Joseph's success is given in the "Life and Letters,"
III., page 100, also in Huxley's "Life," Volume I., page 297, where
Huxley writes to Darwin:--
"We had a capital meeting at Norwich, and dear old Hooker came out in
great force, as he always does in emergencies. The only fault was the
terrible 'Darwinismus' which spread over the section and crept out
when you least expected it, even in Fergusson's lecture on 'Buddhist
Temples.' You will have the rare happiness to see your ideas triumphant
during your lifetime.
"P.S.--I am going into opposition; I can't stand it.")
Down, April 3rd [1868].
I have been thinking over your Presidential Address; I declare I made
myself quite uncomfortable by fancying I had to do it, and feeling
myself utterly dumbfounded.
But I do not believe that you will find it so difficult. When you come
to Down I shall be very curious to hear what your ideas are on the
subject.
Could you make anything out of a history of the great steps in the
progress of Botany, as representing the whole of Natural History? Heaven
protect you! I suppose there are men to whom such a job would not be
so awful as it appears to me...If you had time, you ought to read an
article by W. Bagehot in the April number of the "Fortnightly" (215/2.
"Physic and Politics," "Fortnightly Review," Volume III., page 452,
1868.), applying Natural Selection to early or prehistoric politics,
and, indeed, to late politics,--this you know is your view.
LETTER 216. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. 9, St. Mark's Crescent,
N.W., August 16th [1868].
I ought to have written before to thank you for the copies of your
papers on Primula and on "Cross-unions of Dimorphic Plants, etc." The
latter is particularly interesting and the conclusion most important;
but I think it makes the difficulty of how these forms, with their
varying degrees of sterility, originated, greater than ever. If "natural
selection" could not accumulate varying degrees of sterility for the
plant's benefit, then how did sterility ever come to be associated with
one cross of a trimorphic plant rather than another? The difficulty
seems to be increased by the consideration that the advantage of a cross
with a distinct individual is gained just as well by illegitimate as
by legitimate unions. By what means, then, did illegitimate unions ever
become sterile? It would seem a far simpler way for each plant's pollen
to have acquired a prepotency on another individual's stigma over that
of the same individual, without the extraordinary complication of three
differences of structure and eighteen different unions with varying
degrees of sterility!
However, the fact remains an excellent answer to the statement that
sterility of hybrids proves the absolute distinctness of the parents.
I have been reading with great pleasure Mr. Bentham's last admirable
address (216/1. "Proc. Linn. Soc." 1867-8, page lvii.), in which he so
well replies to the gross misstatements of the "Athenaeum;" and also
says award in favour of pangenesis. I think we may now congratulate you
on having made a valuable convert, whose opinions on the subject, coming
so late and being evidently so well considered, will have much weight.
I am going to Norwich on Tuesday to hear Dr. Hooker, who I hope will
boldly promulgate "Darwinism" in his address. (216/2. Sir Joseph
Hooker's Presidential Address at the British Association Meeting.) Shall
we have the pleasure of seeing you there?
I am engaged in negociations about my book.
Hoping you are well and getting on with your next volumes.
(216/3. We are permitted by Mr. Wallace to append the following note
as to his more recent views on the question of Natural Selection and
sterility:--
"When writing my "Darwinism," and coming again to the consideration
of this problem of the effect of Natural Selection in accumulating
variations in the amount of sterility between varieties or incipient
species twenty years later, I became more convinced, than I was when
discussing with Darwin, of the substantial accuracy of my argument.
Recently a correspondent who is both a naturalist and a mathematician
has pointed out to me a slight error in my calculation at page 183
(which does not, however, materially affect the result), disproving the
'physiological selection' of the late Dr. Romanes, but he can see no
fallacy in my argument as to the power of Natural Selection to increase
sterility between incipient species, nor, so far as I am aware, has any
one shown such fallacy to exist.
"On the other points on which I differed from Mr. Darwin in the
foregoing discussion--the effect of high fertility on population of a
species, etc.--I still hold the views I then expressed, but it would be
out of place to attempt to justify them here."
A.R.W. (1899).)
LETTER 217. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 4th [1867].
With respect to the points in your note, I may sometimes have expressed
myself with ambiguity. At the end of Chapter XXIII., where I say that
marked races are not often (you omit "often") produced by changed
conditions (217/1. "Hence, although it must be admitted that new
conditions of life do sometimes definitely affect organic beings, it
may be doubted whether well-marked races have often been produced by the
direct action of changed conditions without the aid of selection either
by man or nature." ("Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 292, 1868.)),
I intended to refer to the direct action of such conditions in causing
variation, and not as leading to the preservation or destruction of
certain forms. There is as wide a difference in these two respects
as between voluntary selection by man and the causes which induce
variability. I have somewhere in my book referred to the close
connection between Natural Selection and the action of external
conditions in the sense which you specify in your note. And in this
sense all Natural Selection may be said to depend on changed conditions.
In the "Origin" I think I have underrated (and from the cause which
you mention) the effects of the direct action of external conditions in
producing varieties; but I hope in Chapter XXIII. I have struck as fair
a balance as our knowledge permits.
It is wonderful to me that you have patience to read my slips, and I
cannot but regret, as they are so imperfect; they must, I think, give
you a wrong impression, and had I sternly refused, you would perhaps
have thought better of my book. Every single slip is greatly altered,
and I hope improved.
With respect to the human ovule, I cannot find dimensions given, though
I have often seen the statement. My impression is that it would be just
or barely visible if placed on a clear piece of glass. Huxley could
answer your question at once.
I have not been well of late, and have made slow progress, but I think
my book will be finished by the middle of November.
LETTER 218. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. [End of February, 1868]
I am in the second volume of your book, and I have been astonished at
the immense number of interesting facts you have brought together. I
read the chapter on pangenesis first, for I could not wait. I can hardly
tell you how much I admire it. It is a positive comfort to me to have
any feasible explanation of a difficulty that has always been haunting
me, and I shall never be able to give it up till a better one supplies
its place,--and that I think hardly possible. You have now fairly beaten
Spencer on his own ground, for he really offered no solution of the
difficulties of the problem. The incomprehensible minuteness and vast
numbers of the physiological germs or atoms (which themselves must be
compounded of numbers of Spencer's physiological units) is the only
difficulty; but that is only on a par with the difficulties in all
conceptions of matter, space, motion, force, etc.
As I understood Spencer, his physiological units were identical
throughout each species, but slightly different in each different
species; but no attempt was made to show how the identical form of the
parent or ancestors came to be built up of such units.
LETTER 219. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, February 27th [1868].
You cannot well imagine how much I have been pleased by what you say
about pangenesis. None of my friends will speak out, except to a certain
extent Sir H. Holland, who found it very tough reading, but admits that
some view "closely akin to it" will have to be admitted. Hooker, as far
as I understand him, which I hardly do at present, seems to think that
the hypothesis is little more than saying that organisms have such
and such potentialities. What you say exactly and fully expresses my
feelings--viz., that it is a relief to have some feasible explanation
of the various facts, which can be given up as soon as any better
hypothesis is found. It has certainly been an immense relief to my mind;
for I have been stumbling over the subject for years, dimly seeing that
some relation existed between the various classes of facts. I now hear
from H. Spencer that his views quoted in my footnote refer to something
quite distinct, as you seem to have perceived. (219/1. This letter is
published in "Life and Letters," III., page 79.)
LETTER 220. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Hurstpierpoint, March 1st,
1868.
...Sir C. Lyell spoke to me as if he has greatly admired pangenesis. I
am very glad H. Spencer at once acknowledges that his view was something
quite distinct from yours. Although, as you know, I am a great admirer
of his, I feel how completely his view failed to go to the root of the
matter, as yours does. His explained nothing, though he was evidently
struggling hard to find an explanation. Yours, as far as I can see,
explains everything in growth and reproduction--though, of course, the
mystery of life and consciousness remains as great as ever.
Parts of the chapter on pangenesis I found hard reading, and have not
quite mastered yet, and there are also throughout the discussions in
Volume II. many bits of hard reading, on minute points which we, who
have not worked experimentally at cultivation and crossing, as you have
done, can hardly see the importance of, or their bearing on the general
question.
If I am asked, I may perhaps write an article on the book for some
periodical, and, if so, shall do what I can to make "Pangenesis"
appreciated...
(220/1. In "Nature," May 25th, 1871, page 69, appeared a letter on
pangenesis from Mr. A.C. Ranyard, dealing with the difficulty that the
"sexual elements produced upon the scion" have not been shown to be
affected by the stock. Mr. Darwin, in an annotated copy of this letter,
disputes the accuracy of the statement, but adds: "THE BEST OBJECTION
YET RAISED." He seems not to have used Mr. Ranyard's remarks in the 2nd
edition of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," 1875.)
LETTER 221. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 21st [1868].
I know that you have been overworking yourself, and that makes you think
that you are doing nothing in science. If this is the case (which I do
not believe), your intellect has all run to letter-writing, for I never
in all my life received a pleasanter one than your last. It greatly
amused us all. How dreadfully severe you are on the Duke (221/1. The
late Duke of Argyll, whose "Reign of Law" Sir J.D. Hooker had been
reading.): I really think too severe, but then I am no fair judge, for
a Duke, in my eyes, is no common mortal, and not to be judged by common
rules! I pity you from the bottom of my soul about the address (221/2.
Sir Joseph was President of the British Association at Norwich in
1868: see "Life and Letters," III., page 100. The reference to "Insular
Floras" is to Sir Joseph's lecture at the Nottingham meeting of the
British Association in 1866: see "Life and Letters," III., page 47.): it
makes my flesh creep; but when I pitied you to Huxley, he would not join
at all, and would only say that you did and delivered your Insular Flora
lecture so admirably in every way that he would not bestow any pity
on you. He felt certain that you would keep your head high up.
Nevertheless, I wish to God it was all over for your sake. I think,
from several long talks, that Huxley will give an excellent and original
lecture on Geograph. Distrib. of birds. I have been working very
hard--too hard of late--on Sexual Selection, which turns out a
gigantic subject; and almost every day new subjects turn up requiring
investigation and leading to endless letters and searches through books.
I am bothered, also, with heaps of foolish letters on all sorts of
subjects, but I am much interested in my subject, and sometimes see
gleams of light. All my other letters have prevented me indulging myself
in writing to you; but I suddenly found the locust grass (221/3. No
doubt the plants raised from seeds taken from locust dung sent by Mr.
Weale from South Africa. The case is mentioned in the fifth edition of
the "Origin," published in 1869, page 439.) yesterday in flower, and had
to despatch it at once. I suppose some of your assistants will be able
to make the genus out without great trouble. I have done little in
experiment of late, but I find that mignonette is absolutely sterile
with pollen from the same plant. Any one who saw stamen after stamen
bending upwards and shedding pollen over the stigmas of the same flower
would declare that the structure was an admirable contrivance for
self-fertilisation. How utterly mysterious it is that there should be
some difference in ovules and contents of pollen-grains (for the tubes
penetrate own stigma) causing fertilisation when these are taken from
any two distinct plants, and invariably leading to impotence when taken
from the same plant! By Jove, even Pan. (221/4. Pangenesis.) won't
explain this. It is a comfort to me to think that you will be surely
haunted on your death-bed for not honouring the great god Pan. I am
quite delighted at what you say about my book, and about Bentham; when
writing it, I was much interested in some parts, but latterly I thought
quite as poorly of it as even the "Athenaeum." It ought to be read
abroad for the sake of the booksellers, for five editions have come or
are coming out abroad! I am ashamed to say that I have read only the
organic part of Lyell, and I admire all that I have read as much as
you. It is a comfort to know that possibly when one is seventy years old
one's brain may be good for work. It drives me mad, and I know it does
you too, that one has no time for reading anything beyond what must be
read: my room is encumbered with unread books. I agree about Wallace's
wonderful cleverness, but he is not cautious enough in my opinion.
I find I must (and I always distrust myself when I differ from him)
separate rather widely from him all about birds' nests and protection;
he is riding that hobby to death. I never read anything so miserable as
Andrew Murray's criticism on Wallace in the last number of his Journal.
(221/5. See "Journal of Travel and Natural History," Volume I., No.
3, page 137, London, 1868, for Andrew Murray's "Reply to Mr. Wallace's
Theory of Birds' Nests," which appeared in the same volume, page 73.
The "Journal" came to an end after the publication of one volume for
1867-8.) I believe this Journal will die, and I shall not cry: what a
contrast with the old "Natural History Review."
LETTER 222. TO J.D. HOOKER. Freshwater, Isle of Wight, July 28th [1868].
I am glad to hear that you are going (222/1. In his Presidential Address
at Norwich.) to touch on the statement that the belief in Natural
Selection is passing away. I do not suppose that even the "Athenaeum"
would pretend that the belief in the common descent of species is
passing away, and this is the more important point. This now almost
universal belief in the evolution (somehow) of species, I think may be
fairly attributed in large part to the "Origin." It would be well
for you to look at the short Introduction of Owen's "Anat. of
Invertebrates," and see how fully he admits the descent of species.
Of the "Origin," four English editions, one or two American, two French,
two German, one Dutch, one Italian, and several (as I was told) Russian
editions. The translations of my book on "Variation under Domestication"
are the results of the "Origin;" and of these two English, one American,
one German, one French, one Italian, and one Russian have appeared, or
will soon appear. Ernst Hackel wrote to me a week or two ago, that new
discussions and reviews of the "Origin" are continually still coming
out in Germany, where the interest on the subject certainly does not
diminish. I have seen some of these discussions, and they are good ones.
I apprehend that the interest on the subject has not died out in North
America, from observing in Professor and Mrs. Agassiz's Book on Brazil
how exceedingly anxious he is to destroy me. In regard to this country,
every one can judge for himself, but you would not say interest was
dying out if you were to look at the last number of the "Anthropological
Review," in which I am incessantly sneered at. I think Lyell's
"Principles" will produce a considerable effect. I hope I have given
you the sort of information which you want. My head is rather unsteady,
which makes my handwriting worse than usual.
If you argue about the non-acceptance of Natural Selection, it seems to
me a very striking fact that the Newtonian theory of gravitation, which
seems to every one now so certain and plain, was rejected by a man
so extraordinarily able as Leibnitz. The truth will not penetrate a
preoccupied mind.
Wallace (222/2. Wallace, "Westminster Review," July, 1867. The
article begins: "There is no more convincing proof of the truth of a
comprehensive theory, than its power of absorbing and finding a place
for new facts, and its capability of interpreting phenomena, which had
been previously looked upon as unaccountable anomalies..." Mr. Wallace
illustrates his statement that "a false theory will never stand this
test," by Edward Forbes' "polarity" speculations (see page 84 of
the present volume) and Macleay's "Circular" and "Quinarian System"
published in his "Horae Entomologicae," 1821, and developed by Swainson
in the natural history volumes of "Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia."
Mr. Wallace says that a "considerable number of well-known naturalists
either spoke approvingly of it, or advocated similar principles, and for
a good many years it was decidedly in the ascendant...yet it quite died
out in a few short years, its very existence is now a matter of history,
and so rapid was its fall that...Swainson, perhaps, lived to be the last
man who believed in it. Such is the course of a false theory. That of
a true one is very different, as may be well seen by the progress of
opinion on the subject of Natural Selection."
Here, (page 3) follows a passage on the overwhelming importance of
Natural Selection, underlined with apparent approval in Mr. Darwin's
copy of the review.), in the "Westminster Review," in an article on
Protection has a good passage, contrasting the success of Natural
Selection and its growth with the comprehension of new classes of facts
(222/3. This rather obscure phrase may be rendered: "its power of growth
by the absorption of new facts."), with false theories, such as the
Quinarian Theory, and that of Polarity, by poor Forbes, both of
which were promulgated with high advantages and the first temporarily
accepted.
LETTER 223. TO G.H. LEWES.
(223/1. The following is printed from a draft letter inscribed by Mr.
Darwin "Against organs having been formed by direct action of medium in
distinct organisms. Chiefly luminous and electric organs and thorns."
The draft is carelessly written, and all but illegible.)
August 7th, 1868.
If you mean that in distinct animals, parts or organs, such for instance
as the luminous organs of insects or the electric organs of fishes, are
wholly the result of the external and internal conditions to which the
organs have been subjected, in so direct and inevitable a manner that
they could be developed whether of use or not to their possessor, I
cannot admit [your view]. I could almost as soon admit that the whole
structure of, for instance, a woodpecker, had thus originated; and
that there should be so close a relation between structure and external
circumstances which cannot directly affect the structure seems to me to
[be] inadmissible. Such organs as those above specified seem to me
much too complex and generally too well co-ordinated with the whole
organisation, for the admission that they result from conditions
independently of Natural Selection. The impression which I have taken,
studying nature, is strong, that in all cases, if we could collect all
the forms which have ever lived, we should have a close gradation from
some most simple beginning. If similar conditions sufficed, without the
aid of Natural Selection, to give similar parts or organs, independently
of blood relationship, I doubt much whether we should have that striking
harmony between the affinities, embryological development, geographical
distribution, and geological succession of all allied organisms. We
should be much more puzzled than we now are how to class, in a natural
method, many forms. It is puzzling enough to distinguish between
resemblance due to descent and to adaptation; but (fortunately
for naturalists), owing to the strong power of inheritance, and to
excessively complex causes and laws of variability, when the same end
or object has been gained, somewhat different parts have generally been
modified, and modified in a different manner, so that the resemblances
due to descent and adaptation can commonly be distinguished. I should
just like to add, that we may understand each other, how I suppose the
luminous organs of insects, for instance, to have been developed; but I
depend on conjectures, for so few luminous insects exist that we have
no means of judging, by the preservation to the present day of slightly
modified forms, of the probable gradations through which the organs have
passed. Moreover, we do not know of what use these organs are. We see
that the tissues of many animals, [as] certain centipedes in England,
are liable, under unknown conditions of food, temperature, etc., to
become occasionally luminous; just like the [illegible]: such luminosity
having been advantageous to certain insects, the tissues, I suppose,
become specialised for this purpose in an intensified degree; in certain
insects in one part, in other insects in other parts of the body. Hence
I believe that if all extinct insect-forms could be collected, we should
have gradations from the Elateridae, with their highly and constantly
luminous thoraxes, and from the Lampyridae, with their highly luminous
abdomens, to some ancient insects occasionally luminous like the
centipede.
I do not know, but suppose that the microscopical structure of the
luminous organs in the most different insects is nearly the same; and I
should attribute to inheritance from a common progenitor, the similarity
of the tissues, which under similar conditions, allowed them to vary
in the same manner, and thus, through Natural Selection for the same
general purpose, to arrive at the same result. Mutatis mutandis, I
should apply the same doctrine to the electric organs of fishes; but
here I have to make, in my own mind, the violent assumption that some
ancient fish was slightly electrical without having any special organs
for the purpose. It has been stated on evidence, not trustworthy, that
certain reptiles are electrical. It is, moreover, possible that the
so-called electric organs, whilst in a condition not highly developed,
may have subserved some distinct function: at least, I think, Matteucci
could detect no pure electricity in certain fishes provided with the
proper organs. In one of your letters you alluded to nails, claws,
hoofs, etc. From their perfect coadaptation with the whole rest of the
organisation, I cannot admit that they would have been formed by the
direct action of the conditions of life. H. Spencer's view that they
were first developed from indurated skin, the result of pressure on the
extremities, seems to me probable.
In regard to thorns and spines I suppose that stunted and [illegible]
hardened processes were primarily left by the abortion of various
appendages, but I must believe that their extreme sharpness and hardness
is the result of fluctuating variability and "the survival of the
fittest." The precise form, curvature and colour of the thorns I freely
admit to be the result of the laws of growth of each particular plant,
or of their conditions, internal and external. It would be an astounding
fact if any varying plant suddenly produced, without the aid of
reversion or selection, perfect thorns. That Natural Selection would
tend to produce the most formidable thorns will be admitted by every
one who has observed the distribution in South America and Africa (vide
Livingstone) of thorn-bearing plants, for they always appear where the
bushes grow isolated and are exposed to the attacks of mammals. Even
in England it has been noticed that all spine-bearing and sting-bearing
plants are palatable to quadrupeds, when the thorns are crushed. With
respect to the Malayan climbing Palm, what I meant to express is that
the admirable hooks were perhaps not first developed for climbing; but
having been developed for protection were subsequently used, and perhaps
further modified for climbing.
LETTER 224. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 8th [1868].
About the "Pall Mall." (224/1. "Pall Mall Gazette," August 22nd, 1868.
In an article headed "Dr. Hooker on Religion and Science," and referring
to the British Association address, the writer objects to any supposed
opposition between religion and science. "Religion," he says, "is your
opinion upon one set of subjects, science your opinion upon another set
of subjects." But he forgets that on one side we have opinions assumed
to be revealed truths; and this is a condition which either results in
the further opinion that those who bring forward irreconcilable facts
are more or less wicked, or in a change of front on the religious side,
by which theological opinion "shifts its ground to meet the requirements
of every new fact that science establishes, and every old error
that science exposes" (Dr. Hooker as quoted by the "Pall Mall"). If
theologians had been in the habit of recognising that, in the words of
the "Pall Mall" writer, "Science is a general name for human knowledge
in its most definite and general shape, whatever may be the object of
that knowledge," probably Sir Joseph Hooker's remarks would never have
been made.) I do not agree that the article was at all right; it struck
me as monstrous (and answered on the spot by the "Morning Advertiser")
that religion did not attack science. When, however, I say not at all
right, I am not sure whether it would not be wisest for scientific men
quite to ignore the whole subject of religion. Goldwin Smith, who has
been lunching here, coming with the Nortons (son of Professor Norton and
friend of Asa Gray), who have taken for four months Keston Rectory,
was strongly of opinion it was a mistake. Several persons have spoken
strongly to me as very much admiring your address. For chance of you
caring to see yourself in a French dress, I send a journal; also with a
weak article by Agassiz on Geographical Distribution. Berkeley has sent
me his address (224/2. The Rev. M.J. Berkeley was President of Section D
at Norwich in 1868.), so I have had a fair excuse for writing to him. I
differ from you: I could hardly bear to shake hands with the "Sugar of
Lead" (224/3. "You know Mrs. Carlyle said that Owen's sweetness reminded
her of sugar of lead." (Huxley to Tyndall, May 13th, 1887: Huxley's
"Life," II., page 167.), which I never heard before: it is capital. I
am so very glad you will come here with Asa Gray, as if I am bad he will
not be dull. We shall ask the Nortons to come to dinner. On Saturday,
Wallace (and probably Mrs. W.), J. Jenner Weir (a very good man), and
Blyth, and I fear not Bates, are coming to stay the Sunday. The thought
makes me rather nervous; but I shall enjoy it immensely if it does not
kill me. How I wish it was possible for you to be here!
LETTER 225. TO M.J. BERKELEY. Down, September 7th, 1868.
I am very much obliged to you for having sent me your address (225/1.
Address to Section D of the British Association. ("Brit. Assoc. Report,"
Norwich meeting, 1868, page 83.))...for I thus gain a fair excuse
for troubling you with this note to thank you for your most kind and
extremely honourable notice of my works.
When I tell you that ever since I was an undergraduate at Cambridge
I have felt towards you the most unfeigned respect, from all that
I continually heard from poor dear Henslow and others of your great
knowledge and original researches, you will believe me when I say that I
have rarely in my life been more gratified than by reading your address;
though I feel that you speak much too strongly of what I have done. Your
notice of pangenesis (225/3. "It would be unpardonable to finish
these somewhat desultory remarks without adverting to one of the
most interesting subjects of the day,--the Darwinian doctrine of
pangenesis...Like everything which comes from the pen of a writer whom I
have no hesitation, so far as my judgment goes, in considering as by
far the greatest observer of our age, whatever may be thought of his
theories when carried out to their extreme results, the subject demands
a careful and impartial consideration." (Berkeley, page 86.)) has
particularly pleased me, for it has been generally neglected or
disliked by my friends; yet I fully expect that it will some day be more
successful. I believe I quite agree with you in the manner in which the
cast-off atoms or so-called gemmules probably act (225/4. "Assuming
the general truth of the theory that molecules endowed with certain
attributes are cast off by the component cells of such infinitesimal
minuteness as to be capable of circulating with the fluids, and in the
end to be present in the unimpregnated embryo-cell and spermatozoid...it
seems to me far more probable that they should be capable under
favourable circumstances of exercising an influence analogous to that
which is exercised by the contents of the pollen-tube or spermatozoid on
the embryo-sac or ovum, than that these particles should be themselves
developed into cells" (Berkeley, page 87).): I have never supposed that
they were developed into free cells, but that they penetrated other
nascent cells and modified their subsequent development. This process
I have actually compared with ordinary fertilisation. The cells thus
modified, I suppose cast off in their turn modified gemmules, which
again combine with other nascent cells, and so on. But I must not
trouble you any further.
LETTER 226. TO AUGUST WEISMANN. Down, October 22nd, 1868.
I am very much obliged for your kind letter, and I have waited for a
week before answering it in hopes of receiving the "kleine Schrift"
(226/1. The "kleine Schrift" is "Ueber die Berechtigung der Darwin'schen
Theorie," Leipzig, 1868. The "Anhang" is "Ueber den Einfluss der
Wanderung und raumlichen Isolirung auf die Artbilding.") to which you
allude; but I fear it is lost, which I am much surprised at, as I have
seldom failed to receive anything sent by the post.
As I do not know the title, and cannot order a copy, I should be very
much obliged if you can spare another.
I am delighted that you, with whose name I am familiar, should approve
of my work. I entirely agree with what you say about each species
varying according to its own peculiar laws; but at the same time it
must, I think, be admitted that the variations of most species have in
the lapse of ages been extremely diversified, for I do not see how it
can be otherwise explained that so many forms have acquired analogous
structures for the same general object, independently of descent. I am
very glad to hear that you have been arguing against Nageli's law of
perfectibility, which seems to me superfluous. Others hold similar
views, but none of them define what this "perfection" is which cannot
be gradually attained through Natural Selection. I thought M. Wagner's
first pamphlet (226/2. Wagner's first essay, "Die Darwin'sche Theorie
und das Migrationsgesetz," 1868, is a separately published pamphlet of
62 pages. In the preface the author states that it is a fuller version
of a paper read before the Royal Academy of Science at Munich in March
1868. We are not able to say which of Wagner's writings is referred to
as the second pamphlet; his second well-known essay, "Ueber den Einfluss
der Geogr. Isolirung," etc., is of later date, viz., 1870.) (for I have
not yet had time to read the second) very good and interesting; but
I think that he greatly overrates the necessity for emigration and
isolation. I doubt whether he has reflected on what must occur when his
forms colonise a new country, unless they vary during the very first
generation; nor does he attach, I think, sufficient weight to the cases
of what I have called unconscious selection by man: in these cases races
are modified by the preservation of the best and the destruction of the
worst, without any isolation.
I sympathise with you most sincerely on the state of your eyesight: it
is indeed the most fearful evil which can happen to any one who, like
yourself, is earnestly attached to the pursuit of natural knowledge.
LETTER 227. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 18th [1869].
Since I wrote a few days ago and sent off three copies of your book,
I have read the English translation (227/1. "Facts and Arguments for
Darwin." See "Life and Letters," III., page 37.), and cannot deny myself
the pleasure of once again expressing to you my warm admiration. I
might, but will not, repeat my thanks for the very honourable manner in
which you often mention my name; but I can truly say that I look at the
publication of your essay as one of the greatest honours ever conferred
on me. Nothing can be more profound and striking than your observations
on development and classification. I am very glad that you have added
your justification in regard to the metamorphoses of insects; for your
conclusion now seems in the highest degree probable. (227/2. See "Facts
and Arguments for Darwin," page 119 (note), where F. Muller gives his
reasons for the belief that the "complete metamorphosis" of insects was
not a character of the form from which insects have sprung: his
argument largely depends on considerations drawn from the study of the
neuroptera.) I have re-read many parts, especially that on cirripedes,
with the liveliest interest. I had almost forgotten your discussion
on the retrograde development of the Rhizocephala. What an admirable
illustration it affords of my whole doctrine! A man must indeed be a
bigot in favour of separate acts of creation if he is not staggered
after reading your essay; but I fear that it is too deep for English
readers, except for a select few.
LETTER 228. TO A.R. WALLACE. March 27th [1869].
I have lately (i.e., in new edition of the "Origin") (228/1. Fifth
edition, 1869, pages 150-57.) been moderating my zeal, and attributing
much more to mere useless variability. I did think I would send you the
sheet, but I daresay you would not care to see it, in which I discuss
Nageli's Essay on Natural Selection not affecting characters of
no functional importance, and which yet are of high classificatory
importance. Hooker is pretty well satisfied with what I have said on
this head.
LETTER 229. TO J.D. HOOKER. Caerdeon, Barmouth, North Wales, July 24th
[1869].
We shall be at home this day week, taking two days on the journey, and
right glad I shall be. The whole has been a failure to me, but much
enjoyment to the young...My wife has ailed a good deal nearly all the
time; so that I loathe the place, with all its beauty. I was glad to
hear what you thought of F. Muller, and I agree wholly with you. Your
letter came at the nick of time, for I was writing on the very day to
Muller, and I passed on your approbation of Chaps. X. and XI. Some time
I should like to borrow the "Transactions of the New Zealand Institute,"
so as to read Colenso's article. (229/1. Colenso, "On the Maori Races of
New Zealand." "N.Z. Inst. Trans." 1868, Pt. 3.) You must read Huxley
v. Comte (229/2. "The Scientific Aspects of Positivism." "Fortnightly
Review," 1869, page 652, and "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 162. This was a
reply to Mr. Congreve's article, "Mr. Huxley on M. Comte," published in
the April number of the "Fortnightly," page 407, which had been
written in criticism of Huxley's article in the February number of the
"Fortnightly," page 128, "On the Physical Basis of Life."); he never
wrote anything so clever before, and has smashed everybody right and
left in grand style. I had a vague wish to read Comte, and so had
George, but he has entirely cured us of any such vain wish.
There is another article (229/3. "North British Review," Volume 50,
1869: "Geological Time," page 406. The papers reviewed are Sir William
Thomson, "Trans. R. Soc. Edin." 1862; "Phil. Mag." 1863; Thomson and
Tait, "Natural Philosophy," Volume I., App. D; Sir W. Thomson, "Proc.
R. Soc. Edin." 1865; "Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow," 1868 and 1869;
"Macmillan's Mag." 1862; Prof. Huxley, Presidential Address, "Geol.
Soc. London," February, 1869; Dr. Hooker, Presidential Address, "Brit.
Assoc." Norwich, 1868. Also the review on the "Origin" in the "North
British Review," 1867, by Fleeming Jenkin, and an article in the "Pall
Mall Gazette," May 3rd, 1869. The author treats the last-named with
contempt as the work of an anonymous journalist, apparently unconscious
of his own similar position.) just come out in last "North British," by
some great mathematician, which is admirably done; he has a severe fling
at you (229/4. The author of the "North British" article appears to us,
at page 408, to misunderstand or misinterpret Sir J.D. Hooker's parable
on "underpinning." See "Life and Letters," III., page 101 (note). Sir
Joseph is attacked with quite unnecessary vehemence on another point at
page 413.), but the article is directed against Huxley and for Thomson.
This review shows me--not that I required being shown--how devilish
a clever fellow Huxley is, for the reviewer cannot help admiring his
abilities. There are some good specimens of mathematical arrogance in
the review, and incidentally he shows how often astronomers have arrived
at conclusions which are now seen to be mistaken; so that geologists
might truly answer that we must be slow in admitting your conclusions.
Nevertheless, all uniformitarians had better at once cry "peccavi,"--not
but what I feel a conviction that the world will be found rather older
than Thomson makes it, and far older than the reviewer makes it. I am
glad I have faced and admitted the difficulty in the last edition of the
"Origin," of which I suppose you received, according to order, a copy.
LETTER 230. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 7th [1869].
There never was such a good man as you for telling me things which I
like to hear. I am not at all surprised that Hallett has found some
varieties of wheat could not be improved in certain desirable qualities
as quickly as at first. All experience shows this with animals; but it
would, I think, be rash to assume, judging from actual experience, that
a little more improvement could not be got in the course of a century,
and theoretically very improbable that after a few thousands [of years]
rest there would not be a start in the same line of variation. What
astonishes me as against experience, and what I cannot believe, is that
varieties already improved or modified do not vary in other respects.
I think he must have generalised from two or three spontaneously fixed
varieties. Even in seedlings from the same capsule some vary much more
than others; so it is with sub-varieties and varieties. (230/1. In
a letter of August 13th, 1869, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote correcting Mr.
Darwin's impression: "I did not mean to imply that Hallett affirmed that
all variation stopped--far from it: he maintained the contrary, but if
I understand him aright, he soon arrives at a point beyond which any
further accumulation in the direction sought is so small and so slow
that practically a fixity of type (not absolute fixity, however) is the
result.")
It is a grand fact about Anoplotherium (230/2. This perhaps refers to
the existence of Anoplotherium in the S. American Eocene formation: it
is one of the points in which the fauna of S. America resembles Europe
rather than N. America. (See Wallace "Geographical Distribution," I.,
page 148.)), and shows how even terrestrial quadrupeds had time formerly
to spread to very distinct regions. At each epoch the world tends to get
peopled pretty uniformly, which is a blessing for Geology.
The article in "N. British Review" (230/3. See Letter 229.) is well
worth reading scientifically; George D. and Erasmus were delighted with
it. How the author does hit! It was a euphuism to speak of a fling at
you: it was a kick. He is very unfair to Huxley, and accuses him of
"quibbling," etc.; yet the author cannot help admiring him extremely. I
know I felt very small when I finished the article. You will be amused
to observe that geologists have all been misled by Playfair, who was
misled by two of the greatest mathematicians! And there are other
such cases; so we could turn round and show your reviewer how cautious
geologists ought to be in trusting mathematicians.
There is another excellent original article, I feel sure by McClennan,
on Primeval Man, well worth reading.
I do not quite agree about Sabine: he is unlike every other soldier or
sailor I ever heard of if he would not put his second leg into the tomb
with more satisfaction as K.C.B. than as a simple man. I quite agree
that the Government ought to have made him long ago, but what does
the Government know or care for Science? So much for your splenditious
letter.
LETTER 231. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 14th [1869?]
I write one line to tell you that you are a real good man to
propose coming here for a Sunday after Exeter. Do keep to this good
intention...I am sure Exeter and your other visit will do you good. I
often wonder how you stand all your multifarious work.
I quite agree about the folly of the endless subscriptions for dead men;
but Faraday is an exception, and if you will pay three guineas for me,
it will save me some trouble; but it will be best to enclose a cheque,
which, as you will see, must be endorsed. If you read the "North British
Review," you will like to know that George has convinced me, from
correspondence in style, and spirit, that the article is by Tait, the
co-worker with Thomson.
I was much surprised at the leaves of Drosophyllum being always
rolled backwards at their tips, but did not know that it was a unique
character.
(PLATE: SIR J.D. HOOKER, 1870? From a photograph by Wallich.)
LETTER 232. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 13th [1869].
I heard yesterday from a relation who had seen in a newspaper that you
were C.B. I must write one line to say "Hurrah," though I wish it had
been K.C.B., as it assuredly ought to have been; but I suppose they look
at K.C.B. before C.B. as a dukedom before an earldom.
We had a very successful week in London, and I was unusually well and
saw a good many persons, which, when well, is a great pleasure to me. I
had a jolly talk with Huxley, amongst others. And now I am at the same
work as before, and shall be for another two months--namely, putting
ugly sentences rather straighter; and I am sick of the work, and, as the
subject is all on sexual selection, I am weary of everlasting males and
females, cocks and hens.
It is a shame to bother you, but I should like some time to hear about
the C.B. affair.
I have read one or two interesting brochures lately--viz., Stirling
the Hegelian versus Huxley and protoplasm; Tylor in "Journal of Royal
Institute" on the survivals of old thought in modern civilisation.
Farewell. I am as dull as a duck, both male and female.
To Dr. Hooker, C.B., F.R.S.
Dr. Hooker, K.C.B. (This looks better).
P.S. I hear a good account of Bentham's last address (232/1.
Presidential Address, chiefly on Geographical Distribution, delivered
before the "Linn. Soc." May 24th, 1869.), which I am now going to read.
I find that I have blundered about Bentham's address. Lyell was speaking
about one that I read some months ago; but I read half of it again last
night, and shall finish it. Some passages are either new or were not
studied enough by me before. It strikes me as admirable, as it did on
the first reading, though I differ in some few points.
Such an address is worth its weight in gold, I should think, in making
converts to our views. Lyell tells me that Bunbury has been wonderfully
impressed with it, and he never before thought anything of our views on
evolution.
P.S. (2). I have just read, and like very much, your review of Schimper.
(232/2. A review of Schimper's "Traite de Paleontologie Vegetale," the
first portion of which was published in 1869. "Nature," November 11th,
1869, page 48.)
LETTER 233. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 19th [1869].
Thank you much for telling me all about the C.B., for I much wished to
hear. It pleases me extremely that the Government have done this much;
and as the K.C.B.'s are limited in number (which I did not know), I
excuse it. I will not mention what you have told me to any one, as it
would be Murchisonian. But what a shame it is to use this expression,
for I fully believe that Murchison would take any trouble to get any
token of honour for any man of science.
I like all scientific periodicals, including poor "Scientific Opinion,"
and I think higher than you do of "Nature." Lord, what a rhapsody that
was of Goethe, but how well translated; it seemed to me, as I told
Huxley, as if written by the maddest English scholar. It is poetry, and
can I say anything more severe? The last number of the "Academy" was
splendid, and I hope it will soon come out fortnightly. I wish "Nature"
would search more carefully all foreign journals and transactions.
I am now reading a German thick pamphlet (233/1. "Die Abhangigheit
der Pflanzengestalt von Klima und Boden. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von
der Enstehung und Verbreitung der Arten, etc." Festschrift zur 43
Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Aertze in Innsbruck (Innsbruck,
1869).) by Kerner on Tubocytisus; if you come across it, look at the
map of the distribution of the eighteen quasi-species, and at the
genealogical tree. If the latter, as the author says, was constructed
solely from the affinities of the forms, then the distribution is
wonderfully interesting; we may see the very steps of the formation of
a species. If you study the genealogical tree and map, you will almost
understand the book. The two old parent connecting links just keep alive
in two or three areas; then we have four widely extended species, their
descendants; and from them little groups of newer descendants inhabiting
rather small areas...
LETTER 234. TO CAMILLE DARESTE. Down, November 20th, 1869.
Dear Sir,
I am glad that you are a candidate for the Chair of Physiology in Paris.
As you are aware from my published works, I have always considered your
investigations on the production of monstrosities as full of interest.
No subject is at the present time more important, as far as my judgment
goes, than the ascertaining by experiment how far structure can be
modified by the direct action of changed conditions; and you have thrown
much light on this subject.
I observe that several naturalists in various parts of Europe have
lately maintained that it is now of the highest interest for science to
endeavour to lessen, as far as possible, our profound ignorance on the
cause of each individual variation; and, as Is. Geoffroy St. Hilaire
long ago remarked, monstrosities cannot be separated by any distinct
line from slighter variations.
With my best wishes for your success in obtaining the Professorship, and
with sincere respect.
I have the honour to remain, dear sir, Yours faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.