Dr. Kane in his account of the second Grinnell Expedition says that the

Esquimaux in severe weather carry a fox-tail tied to the neck, which

they use as a respirator by holding the tip of the tail between their

teeth. (269/3. The fact is stated in Volume II., page 24, of E.K. Kane's

"Arctic Explorations: The Second Grinnell Expedition in Search of Sir

John Franklin." Philadelphia, 1856.)

He says also that he found a frozen fox curled up with his nose buried

in his tail.

N.B. It is just possible that the latter fact is stated by M'Clintock,

not by Dr. Kane.

(269/4. The final passage is a postscript by Mr. W.E. Darwin bearing on

Mr. Lawson Tait's idea of the respirator function of the fox's tail.)

LETTER 270. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, July 12th, 1875.

I am correcting a second edition of "Variation under Domestication," and

find that I must do it pretty fully. Therefore I give a short abstract

of potato graft-hybrids, and I want to know whether I did not send you a

reference about beet. Did you look to this, and can you tell me anything

about it?

I hope with all my heart that you are getting on pretty well with your

experiments.

I have been led to think a good deal on the subject, and am convinced

of its high importance, though it will take years of hammering before

physiologists will admit that the sexual organs only collect the

generative elements.

The edition will be published in November, and then you will see

all that I have collected, but I believe that you gave all the more

important cases. The case of vine in "Gardeners' Chronicle," which I

sent you, I think may only be a bud-variation not due to grafting. I

have heard indirectly of your splendid success with nerves of medusae.

We have been at Abinger Hall for a month for rest, which I much

required, and I saw there the cut-leaved vine which seems splendid for

graft hybridism.

LETTER 271. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, November 7th, 1875.

I have read your essay with much curiosity and interest, but you

probably have no idea how excessively difficult it is to understand.

(271/1. "A Theory of Heredity" ("Journal of the Anthropological

Institute," 1875). In this paper Mr. Galton admits that the hypothesis

of organic units "must lie at the foundation of the science of

heredity," and proceeds to show in what respect his conception differs

from the hypothesis of pangenesis. The copy of Mr. Galton's paper, which

Darwin numbered in correspondence with the criticisms in his letter, is

not available, and we are therefore only able to guess at some of

the points referred to.) I cannot fully grasp, only here and there

conjecture, what are the points on which we differ. I daresay this is

chiefly due to muddy-headedness on my part, but I do not think wholly

so. Your many terms, not defined, "developed germs," "fertile," and

"sterile germs" (the word "germ" itself from association misleading to

me) "stirp," "sept," "residue," etc., etc., quite confounded me. If I

ask myself how you derive, and where you place the innumerable gemmules

contained within the spermatozoa formed by a male animal during its

whole life, I cannot answer myself. Unless you can make several parts

clearer I believe (though I hope I am altogether wrong) that only a few

will endeavour or succeed in fathoming your meaning. I have marked a

few passages with numbers, and here make a few remarks and express my

opinion, as you desire it, not that I suppose it will be of any use to

you.

1. If this implies that many parts are not modified by use and disuse

during the life of the individual, I differ widely from you, as every

year I come to attribute more and more to such agency. (271/2. This

seems to refer to page 329 of Mr. Galton's paper. The passage must have

been hastily read, and has been quite misunderstood. Mr. Galton has

never expressed the view attributed to him.)

2. This seems rather bold, as sexuality has not been detected in some

of the lowest forms, though I daresay it may hereafter be. (271/3. Mr.

Galton, op. cit., pages 332-3: "There are not of a necessity two

sexes, because swarms of creatures of the simplest organisations mainly

multiply by some process of self-division.")

3. If gemmules (to use my own term) were often deficient in buds, I

cannot but think that bud-variations would be commoner than they are in

a state of nature; nor does it seem that bud-variations often exhibit

deficiencies which might be accounted for by the absence of the proper

gemmules. I take a very different view of the meaning or cause of

sexuality. (271/4. Mr. Galton's idea is that in a bud or other

asexually produced part, the germs (i.e. gemmules) may not be completely

representative of the whole organism, and if reproduction is continued

asexually "at each successive stage there is always a chance of some one

or more of the various species of germs... dying out" (page 333). Mr.

Galton supposes, in sexual reproduction, where two parents contribute

germs to the embryo the chance of deficiency of any of the necessary

germs is greatly diminished. Darwin's "very different view of the

meaning or cause of sexuality" is no doubt that given in "Cross and

Self Fertilisation"--i.e., that sexuality is equivalent to changed

conditions, that the parents are not representative of different sexes,

but of different conditions of life.)

4. I have ordered "Fraser's Magazine" (271/5. "The History of Twins,"

by F. Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," November, 1875, republished with

additions in the "Journal of the Anthropological Institute," 1875. Mr.

Galton explains the striking dissimilarity of twins which is sometimes

met with by supposing that the offspring in this case divide the

available gemmules between them in such a way that each is the

complement of the other. Thus, to put the case in an exaggerated way,

similar twins would each have half the gemmules A, B, C,...Z., etc,

whereas, in the case of dissimilar twins, one would have all the

gemmules A, B, C, D,...M, and the other would have N...Z.), and am

curious to learn how twins from a single ovum are distinguished from

twins from two ova. Nothing seems to me more curious than the similarity

and dissimilarity of twins.

5. Awfully difficult to understand.

6. I have given almost the same notion.

7. I hope that all this will be altered. I have received new and

additional cases, so that I have now not a shadow of doubt.

8. Such cases can hardly be spoken of as very rare, as you would say if

you had received half the number of cases I have.

(271/6. We are unable to determine to what paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 refer.)

I am very sorry to differ so much from you, but I have thought that you

would desire my open opinion. Frank is away, otherwise he should have

copied my scrawl.

I have got a good stock of pods of sweet peas, but the autumn has been

frightfully bad; perhaps we may still get a few more to ripen.

LETTER 272. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 12th [1875].

Many thanks for your "Biology," which I have read. (272/1. "A Course of

Practical Instruction in Elementary Biology," by T.H. Huxley and H.N.

Martin, 1875. For an account of the book see "Life and Letters of T.H.

Huxley," Volume I., page 380.) It was a real stroke of genius to think

of such a plan. Lord, how I wish I had gone through such a course!

LETTER 273. TO FRANCIS GALTON. December 18th [1875].

George has been explaining our differences. I have admitted in the

new edition (273/1. In the second edition (1875) of the "Variation of

Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 350, reference is made to Mr.

Galton's transfusion experiments, "Proc. R. Soc." XIX., page 393; also

to Mr. Galton's letter to "Nature," April 27th, 1871, page 502. This

is a curious mistake; the letter in "Nature," April 27th, 1871, is by

Darwin himself, and refers chiefly to the question whether gemmules may

be supposed to be in the blood. Mr. Galton's letter is in "Nature,"

May 4th, 1871, Volume IV., page 5. See Letter 235.) (before seeing

your essay) that perhaps the gemmules are largely multiplied in the

reproductive organs; but this does not make me doubt that each unit of

the whole system also sends forth its gemmules. You will no doubt have

thought of the following objection to your views, and I should like to

hear what your answer is. If two plants are crossed, it often, or rather

generally, happens that every part of stem, leaf, even to the hairs,

and flowers of the hybrid are intermediate in character; and this hybrid

will produce by buds millions on millions of other buds all exactly

reproducing the intermediate character. I cannot doubt that every unit

of the hybrid is hybridised and sends forth hybridised gemmules. Here we

have nothing to do with the reproductive organs. There can hardly be a

doubt from what we know that the same thing would occur with all those

animals which are capable of budding, and some of these (as the compound

Ascidians) are sufficiently complex and highly organised.

LETTER 274. TO LAWSON TAIT. March 25th, 1876.

(274/1. The reference is to the theory put forward in the first edition

of "Variation of Animals and Plants," II., page 15, that the asserted

tendency to regeneration after the amputation of supernumerary digits

in man is a return to the recuperative powers characteristic of a "lowly

organised progenitor provided with more than five digits." Darwin's

recantation is at Volume I., page 459 of the second edition.)

Since reading your first article (274/2. Lawson Tait wrote two notices

on "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" in the

"Spectator" of March 4th, 1876, page 312, and March 25th, page 406.),

Dr. Rudinger has written to me and sent me an essay, in which he gives

the results of the MOST EXTENSIVE inquiries from all eminent surgeons

in Germany, and all are unanimous about non-growth of extra digits after

amputation. They explain some apparent cases, as Paget did to me. By the

way, I struck out of my second edition a quotation from Sir J. Simpson

about re-growth in the womb, as Paget demurred, and as I could not say

how a rudiment of a limb due to any cause could be distinguished from

an imperfect re-growth. Two or three days ago I had another letter from

Germany from a good naturalist, Dr. Kollmann (274/3. Dr. Kollmann was

Secretary of the Anthropologische Gesellschaft of Munich, in which

Society took place the discussion referred to in "Variation of Animals

and Plants," I., 459, as originating Darwin's doubts on the whole

question. The fresh evidence adduced by Kollmann as to the normal

occurrence of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians is Borus' paper,

"Die sechste Zehe der Anuren" in "Morpholog. Jahrbuch," Bd. I., page

435. On this subject see Letter 178.), saying he was sorry that I

had given up atavism and extra digits, and telling me of new and good

evidence of rudiments of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians (which

I had myself seen, but given up owing to Gegenbaur's views); but, with

re-growth failing me, I could not uphold my old notion.

LETTER 275. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(275/1. Mr. Romanes' reply to this letter is printed in his "Life and

Letters," page 93, where by an oversight it is dated 1880-81.)

H. Wedgwood, Esq., Hopedene, Dorking, May 29th [1876].

As you are interested in pangenesis, and will some day, I hope, convert

an "airy nothing" into a substantial theory, I send by this post

an essay by Hackel (275/2. "Die Perigenesis der Plastidule oder die

Wellenzeugung der Lebenstheilchen," 79 pages. Berlin, 1876.) attacking

Pan. and substituting a molecular hypothesis. If I understand his views

rightly, he would say that with a bird which strengthened its wings by

use, the formative protoplasm of the strengthened parts became changed,

and its molecular vibrations consequently changed, and that these

vibrations are transmitted throughout the whole frame of the bird,

and affect the sexual elements in such a manner that the wings of the

offspring are developed in a like strengthened manner. I imagine he

would say, in cases like those of Lord Morton's mare (275/3. A

nearly pure-bred Arabian chestnut mare bore a hybrid to a quagga, and

subsequently produced two striped colts by a black Arabian horse: see

"Animals and Plants," I., page 403. The case was originally described

in the "Philosophical Transactions," 1821, page 20. For an account of

recent work bearing on this question, see article on "Zebras, Horses,

and Hybrids," in the "Quarterly Review," October 1899. See Letter 235.),

that the vibrations from the protoplasm, or "plasson," of the seminal

fluid of the zebra set plasson vibrating in the mare; and that these

vibrations continued until the hair of the second colt was formed, and

which consequently became barred like that of a zebra. How he explains

reversion to a remote ancestor, I know not. Perhaps I have misunderstood

him, though I have skimmed the whole with some care. He lays much stress

on inheritance being a form of unconscious memory, but how far this is

part of his molecular vibration, I do not understand. His views make

nothing clearer to me; but this may be my fault. No one, I presume,

would doubt about molecular movements of some kind. His essay is clever

and striking. If you read it (but you must not on my account), I should

much like to hear your judgment, and you can return it at any time. The

blue lines are Hackel's to call my attention.

We have come here for rest for me, which I have much needed; and shall

remain here for about ten days more, and then home to work, which is

my sole pleasure in life. I hope your splendid Medusa work and your

experiments on pangenesis are going on well. I heard from my son Frank

yesterday that he was feverish with a cold, and could not dine with the

physiologists, which I am very sorry for, as I should have heard what

they think about the new Bill. I see that you are one of the secretaries

to this young Society.

LETTER 276. TO H.N. MOSELEY. Down, November 22nd [1876].

It is very kind of you to send me the Japanese books, which are

extremely curious and amusing. My son Frank is away, but I am sure he

will be much obliged for the two papers which you have sent him.

Thanks, also, for your interesting note. It is a pity that Peripatus

(276/1. Moseley "On the Structure and Development of Peripatus capensis"

("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 164, page 757, 1874). "When suddenly

handled or irritated, they (i.e. Peripatus) shoot out fine threads of a

remarkably viscid and tenacious milky fluid... projected from the tips

of the oral papillae" (page 759).) is so stupid as to spit out the

viscid matter at the wrong end of its body; it would have been beautiful

thus to have explained the origin of the spider's web.

LETTER 277. NAPHTALI LEWY TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(277/1. The following letter refers to a book, "Toledoth Adam," written

by a learned Jew with the object of convincing his co-religionists of

the truth of the theory of evolution. The translation we owe to the

late Henry Bradshaw, University Librarian at Cambridge. The book is

unfortunately no longer to be found in Mr. Darwin's library.)

[1876].

To the Lord, the Prince, who "stands for an ensign of the people" (Isa.

xi. 10), the Investigator of the generation, the "bright son of the

morning" (Isa. xiv. 12), Charles Darwin, may he live long!

"From the rising of the sun and from the west" (Isa. xlv. 6) all the

nations know concerning the Torah (Theory) (277/2. Lit., instruction.

The Torah is the Pentateuch, strictly speaking, the source of all

knowledge.) which has "proceeded from thee for a light of the people"

(Isa. li. 4), and the nations "hear and say, It is truth" (Isa. xliii.

9). But with "the portion of my people" (Jer. x. 16), Jacob, "the lot

of my inheritance" (Deut. xxxii. 9), it is not so. This nation, "the

ancient people" (Isa. xliv. 7), which "remembers the former things and

considers the things of old (Isa. xliii. 18), "knows not, neither doth

it understand" (Psalm lxxxii. 5), that by thy Torah (instruction or

theory) thou hast thrown light upon their Torah (the Law), and that the

eyes of the Hebrews (277/3. One letter in this word changed would make

the word "blind," which is what Isaiah uses in the passage alluded to.)

"can now see out of obscurity and out of darkness" (Isa. xxix. 18).

Therefore "I arose" (Judges v. 7) and wrote this book, "Toledoth Adam"

("the generations of man," Gen. v. 1), to teach the children of my

people, the seed of Jacob, the Torah (instruction) which thou hast given

for an inheritance to all the nations of the earth.

And I have "proceeded to do a marvellous work among this people, even a

marvellous work and a wonder" (Isa. xxix. 14), enabling them now to read

in the Torah of Moses our teacher, "plainly and giving the sense"

(Neh. viii. 8), that which thou hast given in thy Torahs (works of

instruction). And when my people perceive that thy view has by no means

"gone astray" (Num. v. 12, 19, etc.) from the Torah of God, they will

hold thy name in the highest reverence, and "will at the same time

glorify the God of Israel" (Isa. xxix. 23).

"The vision of all this" (Isa. xxix. 11) thou shalt see, O Prince of

Wisdom, in this book, "which goeth before me" (Gen. xxxii. 21); and

whatever thy large understanding finds to criticise in it, come, "write

it in a table and note it in a book" (Isa. xxx. 8); and allow me to name

my work with thy name, which is glorified and greatly revered by

Thy servant, Naphtali Hallevi [i.e. the Levite].

Dated here in the city of Radom, in the province of Poland, in the month

of Nisan in the year 636, according to the lesser computation (i.e. A.M.

[5]636 = A.D. 1876).

LETTER 278. TO OTTO ZACHARIAS. 1877.

When I was on board the "Beagle" I believed in the permanence of

species, but, as far as I can remember, vague doubts occasionally

flitted across my mind. On my return home in the autumn of 1836 I

immediately began to prepare my journal for publication, and then saw

how many facts indicated the common descent of species (278/1. "The

facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently

fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but until

the relations of the existing with the extinct species and of the

species of the different geographical areas, with one another were

determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation

for speculation. It was not possible that this determination should have

been effected before the return of the "Beagle" to England; and thus the

date which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to the dawn of the new light

which was rising in his mind becomes intelligible."--From "Darwiniana,"

Essays by Thomas H. Huxley, London, 1893; pages 274-5.), so that in

July, 1837, I opened a notebook to record any facts which might bear on

the question; but I did not become convinced that species were mutable

until, I think, two or three years had elapsed. (278/2. On this last

point see page 38.)

LETTER 279. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(279/1. The following letter refers to MS. notes by Romanes, which we

have not seen. Darwin's remarks on it are, however, sufficiently clear.)

My address will be "Bassett, Southampton," June 11th [1877].

I have received the crossing paper which you were so kind as to send me.

It is very clear, and I quite agree with it; but the point in question

has not been a difficulty to me, as I have never believed in a new form

originating from a single variation. What I have called unconscious

selection by man illustrates, as it seems to me, the same principle as

yours, within the same area. Man purchases the individual animals or

plants which seem to him the best in any respect--some more so, and some

less so--and, without any matching or pairing, the breed in the

course of time is surely altered. The absence in numerous instances

of intermediate or blending forms, in the border country between two

closely allied geographical races or close species, seemed to me a

greater difficulty when I discussed the subject in the "Origin."

With respect to your illustration, it formerly drove me half mad to

attempt to account for the increase or diminution of the productiveness

of an organism; but I cannot call to mind where my difficulty lay.

(279/2. See Letters 209-16.) Natural Selection always applies, as I

think, to each individual and its offspring, such as its seeds, eggs,

which are formed by the mother, and which are protected in various ways.

(279/3. It was in regard to this point that Romanes had sent the MS. to

Darwin. In a letter of June 16th he writes: "It was with reference

to the possibility of Natural Selection acting on organic types as

distinguished from individuals,--a possibility which you once told

me did not seem at all clear.") There does not seem any difficulty in

understanding how the productiveness of an organism might be increased;

but it was, as far as I can remember, in reducing productiveness that I

was most puzzled. But why I scribble about this I know not.

I have read your review of Mr. Allen's book (279/4. See "Nature"

(June 7th, 1877, page 98), a review of Grant Allen's "Physiological

Aesthetics."), and it makes me more doubtful, even, than I was before

whether he has really thrown much light on the subject.

I am glad to hear that some physiologists take the same view as I did

about your giving too much credit to H. Spencer--though, heaven knows,

this is a rare fault. (279/5. The reference is to Romanes' lecture on

Medusa, given at the Royal Institution, May 25th. (See "Nature," XVI.,

pages 231, 269, 289.) It appears from a letter of Romanes (June 6th)

that it was the abstract in the "Times" that gave the impression

referred to. References to Mr. Spencer's theories of nerve-genesis occur

in "Nature," pages 232, 271, 289.)

The more I think of your medusa-nerve-work the more splendid it seems to

me.

LETTER 280. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, August 3rd, 1877.

I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your long and interesting

letter. The cause and means of the transition from an hermaphrodite to

a unisexual condition seems to me a very perplexing problem, and I shall

be extremely glad to read your remarks on Smilax, whenever I receive the

essay which you kindly say that you will send me. (280/1. "Monographiae

Phanerogamarum," Volume I. In his treatment of the Smilaceae, De

Candolle distinguishes:--Heterosmilax which has dioecious flowers

without a trace of aborted stamens or pistils, Smilax with sterile

stamens in the female flowers, and Rhipogonum with hermaphrodite

flowers.) There is much justice in your criticisms (280/2. The passage

criticised by De Candolle is in "Forms of Flowers" (page 7): "It is a

natural inference that their corollas have been increased in size for

this special purpose." De Candolle goes on to give an account of the

"recherche linguistique," which, with characteristic fairness, he

undertook to ascertain whether the word "purpose" differs in meaning

from the corresponding French word "but.") on my use of the terms

object, end, purpose; but those who believe that organs have been

gradually modified for Natural Selection for a special purpose may,

I think, use the above terms correctly, though no conscious being has

intervened. I have found much difficulty in my occasional attempts

to avoid these terms, but I might perhaps have always spoken of a

beneficial or serviceable effect. My son Francis will be interested by

hearing about Smilax. He has dispatched to you a copy of his paper on

the glands of Dipsacus (280/3. "Quart. Journ. Mic. Sci." 1877.), and I

hope that you will find time to read it, for the case seems to me a new

and highly remarkable one. We are now hard at work on an attempt to make

out the function or use of the bloom or waxy secretion on the leaves and

fruit of many plants; but I doubt greatly whether our experiments will

tell us much. (280/4. "As it is we have made out clearly that with

some plants (chiefly succulent) the bloom checks evaporation--with

some certainly prevents attacks of insects; with some sea-shore plants

prevents injury from salt-water, and I believe, with a few prevents

injury from pure water resting on the leaves." (See letter to Sir W.

Thiselton-Dyer, "Life and Letters," III., page 341. A paper on the

same subject by Francis Darwin was published in the "Journ. Linn.

Soc." XXII.)) If you have any decided opinion whether plants with

conspicuously glaucous leaves are more frequent in hot than in temperate

or cold, in dry than in damp countries, I should be grateful if you

would add to your many kindnesses by informing me. Pray give my kind

remembrances to your son, and tell him that my son has been trying on

a large scale the effects of feeding Drosera with meat, and the results

are most striking and far more favourable than I anticipated.

LETTER 281. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(281/1. Published in the "Life and Letters" of Romanes, page 66.)

Down, Saturday Night [1877].

I have just finished your lecture (281/2. "The Scientific Evidence of

Organic Evolution: a Discourse" (delivered before the Philosophical

Society of Ross-shire), Inverness, 1877. It was reprinted in the

"Fortnightly Review," and was afterwards worked up into a book under

the above title.); it is an admirable scientific argument, and most

powerful. I wish that it could be sown broadcast throughout the land.

Your courage is marvellous, and I wonder that you were not stoned on

the spot--and in Scotland! Do please tell me how it was received in the

Lecture Hall. About man being made like a monkey (page 37 (281/3. "And

if you reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent, you can

only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous

pains to make him in the image of the ape" ("Discourse," page 37).)) is

quite new to me, and the argument in an earlier place (page 8 (281/4.

At page 8 of the "Discourse" the speaker referred to the law "which Sir

William Hamilton called the Law of Parsimony--or the law which forbids

us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found

sufficient to explain the desired effects," as constituting the "only

logical barrier between Science and Superstition.")) on the law of

parsimony admirably put. Yes, page 21 (281/5. "Discourse," page 21. If

we accept the doctrines of individual creations and ideal types, we

must believe that the Deity acted "with no other apparent motive than

to suggest to us, by every one of the observable facts, that the ideal

types are nothing other than the bonds of a lineal descent.") is new to

me. All strike me as very clear, and, considering small space, you have

chosen your lines of reasoning excellently.

The few last pages are awfully powerful, in my opinion.

Sunday Morning.--The above was written last night in the enthusiasm of

the moment, and now--this dark, dismal Sunday morning--I fully agree

with what I said.

I am very sorry to hear about the failures in the graft experiments, and

not from your own fault or ill-luck. Trollope in one of his novels gives

as a maxim of constant use by a brickmaker--"It is dogged as does it"

(281/6. "Tell 'ee what, Master Crawley;--and yer reverence mustn't think

as I means to be preaching; there ain't nowt a man can't bear if he'll

only be dogged. You go whome, Master Crawley, and think o' that, and

may be it'll do ye a good yet. It's dogged as does it. It ain't thinking

about it." (Giles Hoggett, the old Brickmaker, in "The Last Chronicle

of Barset," Volume II., 1867, page 188.))--and I have often and often

thought that this is the motto for every scientific worker. I am sure it

is yours--if you do not give up pangenesis with wicked imprecations.

By the way, G. Jager has brought out in "Kosmos" a chemical sort of

pangenesis bearing chiefly on inheritance. (281/7. Several papers by

Jager on "Inheritance" were published in the first volume of "Kosmos,"

1877.)

I cannot conceive why I have not offered my garden for your experiments.

I would attend to the plants, as far as mere care goes, with pleasure;

but Down is an awkward place to reach.

Would it be worth while to try if the "Fortnightly" would republish it

[i.e. the lecture]?

LETTER 282. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(282/1. In 1877 the honorary degree of LL.D. was conferred on Mr. Darwin

by the University of Cambridge. At the dinner given on the occasion

by the Philosophical Society, Mr. Huxley responded to the toast of the

evening with the speech of which an authorised version is given by Mr.

L. Huxley in the "Life and Letters" of his father (Volume I., page 479).

Mr. Huxley said, "But whether the that doctrine [of evolution] be true

or whether it be false, I wish to express the deliberate opinion, that

from Aristotle's great summary of the biological knowledge of his time

down to the present day, there is nothing comparable to the "Origin of

Species," as a connected survey of the phenomena of life permeated and

vivified by a central idea."

In the first part of the speech there was a brilliant sentence which he

described as a touch of the whip "tied round with ribbons," and this was

perhaps a little hard on the supporters of evolution in the University.

Mr. Huxley said "Instead of offering her honours when they ran a chance

of being crushed beneath the accumulated marks of approbation of the

whole civilised world, the University has waited until the trophy

was finished, and has crowned the edifice with the delicate wreath of

academic appreciation.")

Down, Monday night, November 19th [1877].

I cannot rest easy without telling you more gravely than I did when we

met for five minutes near the Museum, how deeply I have felt the many

generous things (as far as Frank could remember them) which you said

about me at the dinner. Frank came early next morning boiling over with

enthusiasm about your speech. You have indeed always been to me a most

generous friend, but I know, alas, too well how greatly you overestimate

me. Forgive me for bothering you with these few lines.

(282/2. The following extract from a letter (February 10th, 1878) to his

old schoolfellow, Mr. J. Price, gives a characteristic remark about the

honorary degree.)

"I am very much obliged for your kind congratulations about the LL.D.

Why the Senate conferred it on me I know not in the least. I was

astonished to hear that the R. Prof. of Divinity and several other great

Dons attended, and several such men have subscribed, as I am informed,

for the picture for the University to commemorate the honour conferred

on me."

LETTER 283. TO W. BOWMAN.

(283/1. We have not discovered to what prize the following letter to the

late Sir W. Bowman (the well known surgeon) refers.)

Down, February 22nd, 1878.

I received your letter this morning, and it was quite impossible that

you should receive an answer by 4 p.m. to-day. But this does not signify

in the least, for your proposal seems to me a very good one, and I most

entirely agree with you that it is far better to suggest some special

question rather than to have a general discussion compiled from

books. The rule that the Essay must be "illustrative of the wisdom and

beneficence of the Almighty" would confine the subjects to be proposed.

With respect to the Vegetable Kingdom, I could suggest two or three

subjects about which, as it seems to me, information is much required;

but these subjects would require a long course of experiment, and

unfortunately there is hardly any one in this country who seems inclined

to devote himself to experiments.

LETTER 284. TO J. TORBITT.

(284/1. Mr. Torbitt was engaged in trying to produce by methodical

selection and cross-fertilisation a fungus-proof race of the potato. The

plan is fully described in the "Life and Letters," III., page 348.

The following letter is given in additional illustration of the keen

interest Mr. Darwin took in the project.)

Down, Monday, March 4th, 1878.

I have nothing good to report. Mr. Caird called upon me yesterday;

both he and Mr. Farrer (284/2. The late Lord Farrer.) have been

most energetic and obliging. There is no use in thinking about the

Agricultural Society. Mr. Caird has seen several persons on the subject,

especially Mr. Carruthers, Botanist to the Society. He (Mr. Carruthers)

thinks the attempt hopeless, but advances in a long memorandum sent to

Mr. Caird, reasons which I am convinced are not sound. He specifies two

points, however, which are well worthy of your consideration--namely,

that a variety should be tested three years before its soundness can

be trusted; and especially it should be grown under a damp climate. Mr.

Carruthers' opinion on this head is valuable because he was employed

by the Society in judging the varieties sent in for the prize offered a

year or two ago. If I had strength to get up a memorial to Government, I

believe that I could succeed; for Sir J. Hooker writes that he believes

you are on the right path; but I do not know to whom else to apply

whose judgment would have weight with Government, and I really have not

strength to discuss the matter and convert persons.

At Mr. Farrer's request, when we hoped the Agricultural Society might

undertake it, I wrote to him a long letter giving him my opinion on the

subject; and this letter Mr. Caird took with him yesterday, and

will consider with Mr. Farrer whether any application can be made to

Government.

I am, however, far from sanguine. I shall see Mr. Farrer this evening,

and will do what I can. When I receive back my letter I will send it to

you for your perusal.

After much reflection it seems to me that your best plan will be, if

we fail to get Government aid, to go on during the present year, on a

reduced scale, in raising new cross-fertilised varieties, and next

year, if you are able, testing the power of endurance of only the most

promising kind. If it were possible it would be very advisable for you

to get some grown on the wet western side of Ireland. If you succeed

in procuring a fungus-proof variety you may rely on it that its merits

would soon become known locally and it would afterwards spread rapidly

far and wide. Mr. Caird gave me a striking instance of such a case in

Scotland. I return home to-morrow morning.

I have the pleasure to enclose a cheque for 100 pounds. If you receive a

Government grant, I ought to be repaid.

P.S. If I were in your place I would not expend any labour or money in

publishing what you have already done, or in sending seeds or tubers to

any one. I would work quietly on till some sure results were obtained.

And these would be so valuable that your work in this case would soon be

known. I would also endeavour to pass as severe a judgment as possible

on the state of the tubers and plants.

LETTER 285. TO E. VON MOJSISOVICS. Down, June 1st, 1878.

I have at last found time to read [the] first chapter of your "Dolomit

Riffe" (285/1. "Dolomitriffe Sudtirols und Venetiens." Wien, 1878.), and

have been exceedingly interested by it. What a wonderful change in

the future of geological chronology you indicate, by assuming the

descent-theory to be established, and then taking the graduated changes

of the same group of organisms as the true standard! I never hoped to

live to see such a step even proposed by any one. (285/2. Published in

"Life and Letters," III., pages 234, 235.)

Nevertheless, I saw dimly that each bed in a formation could contain

only the organisms proper to a certain depth, and to other there

existing conditions, and that all the intermediate forms between one

marine species and another could rarely be preserved in the same

place and bed. Oppel, Neumayr, and yourself will confer a lasting and

admirable service on the noble science of Geology, if you can spread

your views so as to be generally known and accepted.

With respect to the continental and oceanic periods common to the whole

northern hemisphere, to which you refer, I have sometimes speculated

that the present distribution of the land and sea over the world may

have formerly been very different to what it now is; and that new genera

and families may have been developed on the shores of isolated tracts in

the south, and afterwards spread to the north.

LETTER 286. TO J.W. JUDD. Down, June 27th, 1878.

I am heartily glad to hear of your intended marriage. A good wife is the

supreme blessing in this life, and I hope and believe from what you

say that you will be as happy as I have been in this respect. May your

future geological work be as valuable as that which you have already

done; and more than this need not be wished for any man. The practical

teaching of Geology seems an excellent idea.

Many thanks for Neumayr, (286/1. Probably a paper on "Die Congerien

und Paludinenschichten Slavoniens und deren Fauna. Ein Beitrag zur

Descendenz-Theorie," "Wien. Geol. Abhandl." VII. (Heft 3), 1874-82.),

but I have already received and read a copy of the same, or at least of

a very similar essay, and admirably good it seemed to me.

This essay, and one by Mojsisovics (286/2. See note to Letter 285.),

which I have lately read, show what Palaeontology in the future will do

for the classification and sequence of formations. It delighted me to

see so inverted an order of proceeding--viz., the assuming the descent

of species as certain, and then taking the changes of closely allied

forms as the standard of geological time. My health is better than it

was a few years ago, but I never pass a day without much discomfort and

the sense of extreme fatigue.

(286/3. We owe to Professor Judd the following interesting recollections

of Mr. Darwin, written about 1883:--

"On this last occasion, when I congratulated him on his seeming better

condition of health, he told me of the cause for anxiety which he had in

the state of his heart. Indeed, I cannot help feeling that he had a

kind of presentiment that his end was approaching. When I left him, he

insisted on conducting me to the door, and there was that in his tone

and manner which seemed to convey to me the sad intelligence that it

was not merely a temporary farewell, though he himself was perfectly

cheerful and happy.

"It is impossible for me adequately to express the impression made upon

my mind by my various conversations with Mr. Darwin. His extreme

modesty led him to form the lowest estimate of his own labours, and

a correspondingly extravagant idea of the value of the work done by

others. His deference to the arguments and suggestions of men greatly

his juniors, and his unaffected sympathy in their pursuits, was most

marked and characteristic; indeed, he, the great master of science, used

to speak, and I am sure felt, as though he were appealing to superior

authority for information in all his conversations. It was only when a

question was fully discussed with him that one became conscious of the

fund of information he could bring to its elucidation, and the breadth

of thought with which he had grasped it. Of his gentle, loving nature,

of which I had so many proofs, I need not write; no one could be with

him, even for a few minutes, without being deeply impressed by his

grateful kindliness and goodness.")

LETTER 287. TO COUNT SAPORTA. Down, August 15th, 1878.

I thank you very sincerely for your kind and interesting letter. It

would be false in me to pretend that I care very much about my election

to the Institute, but the sympathy of some few of my friends has

gratified me deeply.

I am extremely glad to hear that you are going to publish a work on the

more ancient fossil plants; and I thank you beforehand for the volume

which you kindly say that you will send me. I earnestly hope that you

will give, at least incidentally, the results at which you have arrived

with respect to the more recent Tertiary plants; for the close gradation

of such forms seems to me a fact of paramount importance for the

principle of evolution. Your cases are like those on the gradation in

the genus Equus, recently discovered by Marsh in North America.

LETTER 288. TO THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.

(288/1. The following letter was published in "Nature," March 5th, 1891,

Volume XLIII., page 415, together with a note from the late Duke of

Argyll, in which he stated that the letter had been written to him by

Mr. Darwin in reply to the question, "why it was that he did assume the

unity of mankind as descended from a single pair." The Duke added that

in the reply Mr. Darwin "does not repudiate this interpretation of his

theory, but simply proceeds to explain and to defend the doctrine." On

a former occasion the Duke of Argyll had "alluded as a fact to the

circumstance that Charles Darwin assumed mankind to have arisen at

one place, and therefore in a single pair." The letter from Darwin was

published in answer to some scientific friends, who doubted the fact and

asked for the reference on which the statement was based.)

Down, September 23rd, 1878.

The problem which you state so clearly is a very interesting one, on

which I have often speculated. As far as I can judge, the improbability

is extreme that the same well-characterised species should be produced

in two distinct countries, or at two distinct times. It is certain that

the same variation may arise in two distinct places, as with albinism

or with the nectarine on peach-trees. But the evidence seems to me

overwhelming that a well-marked species is the product, not of a single

or of a few variations, but of a long series of modifications, each

modification resulting chiefly from adaptation to infinitely complex

conditions (including the inhabitants of the same country), with more

or less inheritance of all the preceding modifications. Moreover, as

variability depends more on the nature of the organism than on that of

the environment, the variations will tend to differ at each successive

stage of descent. Now it seems to me improbable in the highest degree

that a species should ever have been exposed in two places to infinitely

complex relations of exactly the same nature during a long series

of modifications. An illustration will perhaps make what I have said

clearer, though it applies only to the less important factors

of inheritance and variability, and not to adaptation--viz., the

improbability of two men being born in two countries identical in body

and mind. If, however, it be assumed that a species at each successive

stage of its modification was surrounded in two distinct countries or

times, by exactly the same assemblage of plants and animals, and by the

same physical conditions, then I can see no theoretical difficulty [in]

such a species giving birth to the new form in the two countries. If

you will look to the sixth edition of my "Origin," at page 100, you will

find a somewhat analogous discussion, perhaps more intelligible than

this letter.

LETTER 289. W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE."

(289/1. The following letter ("Nature," Volume XLIII., page 535)

criticises the interpretation given by the Duke to Mr. Darwin's letter.)

Royal Gardens, Kew, March 27th [1891].

In "Nature" of March 5th (page 415), the Duke of Argyll has printed

a very interesting letter of Mr. Darwin's, from which he drew the

inference that the writer "assumed mankind to have arisen...in a single

pair." I do not think myself that the letter bears this interpretation.

But the point in its most general aspect is a very important one, and

is often found to present some difficulty to students of Mr. Darwin's

writings.

Quite recently I have found by accident, amongst the papers of the late

Mr. Bentham at Kew, a letter of friendly criticism from Mr. Darwin upon

the presidential address which Mr. Bentham delivered to the Linnean

Society on May 24th, 1869. This letter, I think, has been overlooked and

not published previously. In it Mr. Darwin expresses himself with regard

to the multiple origin of races and some other points in very explicit

language. Prof. Meldola, to whom I mentioned in conversation the

existence of the letter, urged me strongly to print it. This, therefore,

I now do, with the addition of a few explanatory notes.

LETTER 290. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, November 25th, 1869.

(290/1. The notes to this letter are by Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, and

appeared in "Nature," loc. cit.)

I was greatly interested by your address, which I have now read thrice,

and which I believe will have much influence on all who read it. But you

are mistaken in thinking that I ever said you were wrong on any point.

All that I meant was that on certain points, and these very doubtful

points, I was inclined to differ from you. And now, on further

considering the point on which some two or three months ago I felt most

inclined to differ--viz., on isolation--I find I differ very little.

What I have to say is really not worth saying, but as I should be very

sorry not to do whatever you asked, I will scribble down the slightly

dissentient thoughts which have occurred to me. It would be an endless

job to specify the points in which you have interested me; but I may

just mention the relation of the extreme western flora of Europe (some

such very vague thoughts have crossed my mind, relating to the Glacial

period) with South Africa, and your remarks on the contrast of passive

and active distribution.

Page lxx.--I think the contingency of a rising island, not as yet fully

stocked with plants, ought always to be kept in mind when speaking of

colonisation.

Page lxxiv.--I have met with nothing which makes me in the least doubt

that large genera present a greater number of varieties relatively to

their size than do small genera. (290/2. Bentham thought "degree of

variability... like other constitutional characters, in the first place

an individual one, which...may become more or less hereditary, and

therefore specific; and thence, but in a very faint degree, generic."

He seems to mean to argue against the conclusion which Sir Joseph

Hooker had quoted from Mr. Darwin that "species of large genera are

more variable than those of small." [On large genera varying, see Letter

53.]) Hooker was convinced by my data, never as yet published in full,

only abstracted in the "Origin."

Page lxxviii.--I dispute whether a new race or species is necessarily,

or even generally, descended from a single or pair of parents. The

whole body of individuals, I believe, become altered together--like

our race-horses, and like all domestic breeds which are changed through

"unconscious selection" by man. (290/3. Bentham had said: "We must also

admit that every race has probably been the offspring of one parent or

pair of parents, and consequently originated in one spot." The Duke of

Argyll inverts the proposition.)

When such great lengths of time are considered as are necessary to

change a specific form, I greatly doubt whether more or less rapid

powers of multiplication have more than the most insignificant weight.

These powers, I think, are related to greater or less destruction in

early life.

Page lxxix.--I still think you rather underrate the importance of

isolation. I have come to think it very important from various grounds;

the anomalous and quasi-extinct forms on islands, etc., etc., etc.

With respect to areas with numerous "individually durable" forms, can it

be said that they generally present a "broken" surface with "impassable

barriers"? This, no doubt, is true in certain cases, as Teneriffe. But

does this hold with South-West Australia or the Cape? I much doubt.

I have been accustomed to look at the cause of so many forms as being

partly an arid or dry climate (as De Candolle insists) which indirectly

leads to diversified [?] conditions; and, secondly, to isolation from

the rest of the world during a very long period, so that other more

dominant forms have not entered, and there has been ample time for much

specification and adaptation of character.

Page lxxx.--I suppose you think that the Restiaceae, Proteaceae (290/4.

It is doubtful whether Bentham did think so. In his 1870 address he

says: "I cannot resist the opinion that all presumptive evidence is

against European Proteaceae, and that all direct evidence in their

favour has broken down upon cross-examination."), etc., etc., once

extended over the world, leaving fragments in the south.

You in several places speak of distribution of plants as if exclusively

governed by soil and climate. I know that you do not mean this, but I

regret whenever a chance is omitted of pointing out that the struggle

with other plants (and hostile animals) is far more important.

I told you that I had nothing worth saying, but I have given you my

THOUGHTS.

How detestable are the Roman numerals! why should not the President's

addresses, which are often, and I am sure in this case, worth more than

all the rest of the number, be paged with Christian figures?

LETTER 291. TO R. MELDOLA.

(291/1. "This letter was in reply to a suggestion that in his preface

Mr. Darwin should point out by references to "The Origin of Species"

and his other writings how far he had already traced out the path which

Weismann went over. The suggestion was made because in a great many of

the continental writings upon the theory of descent, many of the points

which had been clearly foreshadowed, and in some cases even explicitly

stated by Darwin, had been rediscovered and published as though

original. In the notes to my edition of Weismann I have endeavoured to

do Darwin full justice.--R.M." See Letter 310.)

4, Bryanston Street, November 26th, 1878.

I am very sorry to say that I cannot agree to your suggestion. An author

is never a fit judge of his own work, and I should dislike extremely

pointing out when and how Weismann's conclusions and work agreed with my

own. I feel sure that I ought not to do this, and it would be to me

an intolerable task. Nor does it seem to me the proper office of the

preface, which is to show what the book contains, and that the contents

appear to me valuable. But I can see no objection for you, if you think

fit, to write an introduction with remarks or criticisms of any kind. Of

course, I would be glad to advise you on any point as far as lay in my

power, but as a whole I could have nothing to do with it, on the grounds

above specified, that an author cannot and ought not to attempt to judge

his own works, or compare them with others. I am sorry to refuse to do

anything which you wish.

LETTER 292. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 18th, 1879.

I have just finished your present of the Life of Hume (292/1. "Hume" in

Mr. Morley's "English Men of Letters" series. Of the biographical part

of this book Mr. Huxley wrote, in a letter to Mr. Skelton, January 1879

("Life of T.H. Huxley," II., page 7): "It is the nearest approach to a

work of fiction of which I have yet been guilty."), and must thank you

for the great pleasure which it has given me. Your discussions are,

as it seems to me, clear to a quite marvellous degree, and many of

the little interspersed flashes of wit are delightful. I particularly

enjoyed the pithy judgment in about five words on Comte. (292/2.

Possibly the passage referred to is on page 52.) Notwithstanding the

clearness of every sentence, the subjects are in part so difficult that

I found them stiff reading. I fear, therefore, that it will be too stiff

for the general public; but I heartily hope that this will prove to be a

mistake, and in this case the intelligence of the public will be greatly

exalted in my eyes. The writing of this book must have been awfully hard

work, I should think.

LETTER 293. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 4th [1879].

I thank you cordially for your letter. Your facts and discussion on the

loss of the hairs on the legs of the caddis-flies seem to me the most

important and interesting thing which I have read for a very long time.

I hope that you will not disapprove, but I have sent your letter to

"Nature" (293/1. Fritz Muller, "On a Frog having Eggs on its Back--On

the Abortion of the Hairs on the Legs of certain Caddis-Flies, etc.":

Muller's letter and one from Charles Darwin were published in "Nature,"

Volume XIX., page 462, 1879.), with a few prefatory remarks, pointing

out to the general reader the importance of your view, and stating

that I have been puzzled for many years on this very point. If, as I

am inclined to believe, your view can be widely extended, it will be a

capital gain to the doctrine of evolution. I see by your various papers

that you are working away energetically, and, wherever you look, you

seem to discover something quite new and extremely interesting. Your

brother also continues to do fine work on the fertilisation of flowers

and allied subjects.

I have little or nothing to tell you about myself. I go slowly crawling

on with my present subject--the various and complicated movements of

plants. I have not been very well of late, and am tired to-day, so will

write no more. With the most cordial sympathy in all your work, etc.

LETTER 294. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 19th, 1879.

Many thanks for the book. (294/1. Ernst Hackel's "Freedom in Science and

Teaching," with a prefatory note by T.H. Huxley, 1879. Professor Hackel

has recently published (without permission) a letter in which Mr. Darwin

comments severely on Virchow. It is difficult to say which would have

pained Mr. Darwin more--the affront to a colleague, or the breach of

confidence in a friend.) I have read only the preface...It is capital,

and I enjoyed the tremendous rap on the knuckles which you gave Virchow

at the close. What a pleasure it must be to write as you can do!

LETTER 295. TO E.S. MORSE. Down, October 21st, 1879.

Although you are so kind as to tell me not to write, I must just thank

you for the proofs of your paper, which has interested me greatly.

(295/1. See "The Shell Mounds of Omori" in the "Memoirs of the Science

Department of the Univ. of Tokio," Volume I., Part I., 1879. The ridges

on Arca are mentioned at page 25. In "Nature," April 15th, 1880, Mr.

Darwin published a letter by Mr. Morse relating to the review of the

above paper, which appeared in "Nature," XXI., page 350. Mr. Darwin

introduces Mr. Morse's letter with some prefatory remarks. The

correspondence is republished in the "American Naturalist," September,

1880.) The increase in the number of ridges in the three species of Arca

seems to be a very noteworthy fact, as does the increase of size in so

many, yet not all, the species. What a constant state of fluctuation

the whole organic world seems to be in! It is interesting to hear that

everywhere the first change apparently is in the proportional numbers of

the species. I was much struck with the fact in the upraised shells of

Coquimbo, in Chili, as mentioned in my "Geological Observations on South

America."

Of all the wonders in the world, the progress of Japan, in which you

have been aiding, seems to me about the most wonderful.

LETTER 296. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 5th 1880.

As this note requires no sort of answer, you must allow me to express

my lively admiration of your paper in the "Nineteenth Century." (296/1.

"Nineteenth Century," January 1880, page 93, "On the Origin of Species

and Genera.") You certainly are a master in the difficult art of clear

exposition. It is impossible to urge too often that the selection from a

single varying individual or of a single varying organ will not suffice.

You have worked in capitally Allen's admirable researches. (296/2. J.A.

Allen, "On the Mammals and Winter Birds of East Florida, etc." ("Bull.

Mus. Comp. Zoolog. Harvard," Volume II.) As usual, you delight to honour

me more than I deserve. When I have written about the extreme slowness

of Natural Selection (296/3. Mr. Wallace makes a calculation based on

Allen's results as to the very short period in which the formation of a

race of birds differing 10 to 20 per cent. from the average in length of

wing and strength of beak might conceivably be effected. He thinks that

the slowness of the action of Natural Selection really depends on the

slowness of the changes naturally occurring in the physical conditions,

etc.) (in which I hope I may be wrong), I have chiefly had in my mind

the effects of intercrossing. I subscribe to almost everything you say

excepting the last short sentence. (296/4. The passage in question is

as follows: "I have also attempted to show that the causes which have

produced the separate species of one genus, of one family, or perhaps of

one order, from a common ancestor, are not necessarily the same as those

which have produced the separate orders, classes, and sub-kingdoms

from more remote common ancestors. That all have been alike produced by

'descent with modification' from a few primitive types, the whole body

of evidence clearly indicates; but while individual variation with

Natural Selection is proved to be adequate for the production of the

former, we have no proof and hardly any evidence that it is adequate

to initiate those important divergences of type which characterise the

latter." In this passage stress should be laid (as Mr. Wallace points

out to us) on the word PROOF. He by no means asserts that the causes

which have produced the species of a genus are inadequate to produce

greater differences. His object is rather to urge the difference between

proof and probability.)

LETTER 297. TO J.H. FABRE.

(297/1. A letter to M. Fabre is given in "Life and Letters," III., page

220, in which the suggestion is made of rotating the insect before a

"homing" experiment occurs.)

Down, February 20th, 1880.

I thank you for your kind letter, and am delighted that you will try the

experiment of rotation. It is very curious that such a belief should

be held about cats in your country (297/2. M. Fabre had written from

Serignan, Vaucluse: "Parmi la population des paysans de mon village,

l'habitude est de faire tourner dans un sac le chat que l'on se propose

de porter ailleurs, et dont on veut empecher le retour. J'ignore si

cette pratique obtient du succes."), I never heard of anything of the

kind in England. I was led, as I believe, to think of the experiment

from having read in Wrangel's "Travels in Siberia" (297/3. Admiral

Ferdinand Petrovich von Wrangell, "Le Nord de la Siberie, Voyage

parmi les Peuplades de la Russie asiatique, etc." Paris, 1843.) of the

wonderful power which the Samoyedes possess of keeping their direction

in a fog whilst travelling in a tortuous line through broken ice. With

respect to cats, I have seen an account that in Belgium there is a

society which gives prizes to the cat which can soonest find its way

home, and for this purpose they are carried to distant parts of the

city.

Here would be a capital opportunity for trying rotation.

I am extremely glad to hear that your book will probably be translated

into English.

P.S.--I shall be much pleased to hear the result of your experiments.

LETTER 298. TO J.H. FABRE. Down, January 21st, 1881.

I am much obliged for your very interesting letter. Your results appear

to me highly important, as they eliminate one means by which animals

might perhaps recognise direction; and this, from what has been said

about savages, and from our own consciousness, seemed the most probable

means. If you think it worth while, you can of course mention my name in

relation to this subject.

Should you succeed in eliminating a sense of the magnetic currents of

the earth, you would leave the field of investigation quite open.

I suppose that even those who still believe that each species was

separately created would admit that certain animals possess some sense

by which they perceive direction, and which they use instinctively.

On mentioning the subject to my son George, who is a mathematician and

knows something about magnetism, he suggested making a very thin needle

into a magnet; then breaking it into very short pieces, which would

still be magnetic, and fastening one of these pieces with some cement on

the thorax of the insect to be experimented on.

He believes that such a little magnet, from its close proximity to

the nervous system of the insect, would affect it more than would the

terrestrial currents.

I have received your essay on Halictus (298/1. "Sur les Moeurs et la

Parthenogese des Halictes" ("Ann. Sc. Nat." IX., 1879-80).), which I am

sure that I shall read with much interest.

LETTER 299. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(299/1. On April 9th, 1880, Mr. Huxley lectured at the Royal Institution

on "The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species." The lecture was

published in "Nature" and in Huxley's "Collected Essays," Volume II.,

page 227. Darwin's letter to Huxley on the subject is given in "Life

and Letters," III., page 240; in Huxley's reply of May 10th ("Life and

Letters of T.H. Huxley," II., page 12) he writes: "I hope you do not

imagine because I had nothing to say about 'Natural Selection' that I am

at all weak of faith on that article...But the first thing seems to me

to be to drive the fact of evolution into people's heads; when that is

once safe, the rest will come easy.")

Down, May 11th, 1880.

I had no intention to make you write to me, or expectation of your

doing so; but your note has been so far "cheerier" (299/2. "You are the

cheeriest letter-writer I know": Huxley to Darwin. See Huxley's "Life,"

II., page 12.) to me than mine could have been to you, that I must

and will write again. I saw your motive for not alluding to Natural

Selection, and quite agreed in my mind in its wisdom. But at the same

time it occurred to me that you might be giving it up, and that anyhow

you could not safely allude to it without various "provisos" too long to

give in a lecture. If I think continuously on some half-dozen structures

of which we can at present see no use, I can persuade myself that

Natural Selection is of quite subordinate importance. On the other hand,

when I reflect on the innumerable structures, especially in plants,

which twenty years ago would have been called simply "morphological" and

useless, and which are now known to be highly important, I can persuade

myself that every structure may have been developed through Natural

Selection. It is really curious how many out of a list of structures

which Bronn enumerated, as not possibly due to Natural Selection because

of no functional importance, can now be shown to be highly important.

Lobed leaves was, I believe, one case, and only two or three days ago

Frank showed me how they act in a manner quite sufficiently important to

account for the lobing of any large leaf. I am particularly delighted at

what you say about domestic dogs, jackals, and wolves, because from

mere indirect evidence I arrived in "Varieties of Domestic Animals" at

exactly the same conclusion (299/3. Mr. Darwin's view was that domestic

dogs descend from more than one wild species.) with respect to the

domestic dogs of Europe and North America. See how important in another

way this conclusion is; for no one can doubt that large and small dogs

are perfectly fertile together, and produce fertile mongrels; and how

well this supports the Pallasian doctrine (299/4. See Letter 80.) that

domestication eliminates the sterility almost universal between forms

slowly developed in a state of nature.

I humbly beg your pardon for bothering you with so long a note; but it

is your own fault.

Plants are splendid for making one believe in Natural Selection, as will

and consciousness are excluded. I have lately been experimenting on

such a curious structure for bursting open the seed-coats: I declare

one might as well say that a pair of scissors or nutcrackers had been

developed through external conditions as the structure in question.

(299/5. The peg or heel in Cucurbita: see "Power of Movement in Plants"

page 102.)

LETTER 300. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 5th, 1880.

On reading over your excellent review (300/1. See "Nature," November

4th, 1880, page 1, a review of Volume I. of the publications of the

"Challenger," to which Sir Wyville Thomson contributed a General

Introduction.) with the sentence quoted from Sir Wyville Thomson, it

seemed to me advisable, considering the nature of the publication, to

notice "extreme variation" and another point. Now, will you read the

enclosed, and if you approve, post it soon. If you disapprove, throw it

in the fire, and thus add one more to the thousand kindnesses which you

have done me. Do not write: I shall see result in next week's "Nature."

Please observe that in the foul copy I had added a final sentence

which I do not at first copy, as it seemed to me inferentially too

contemptuous; but I have now pinned it to the back, and you can send

it or not, as you think best,--that is, if you think any part worth

sending. My request will not cost you much trouble--i.e. to read two

pages, for I know that you can decide at once. I heartily enjoyed my

talk with you on Sunday morning.

P.S.--If my manuscript appears too flat, too contemptuous, too spiteful,

or too anything, I earnestly beseech you to throw it into the fire.

LETTER 301. CHARLES DARWIN TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE."

(301/1. "Nature," November 11th, 1880, page 32.)

Down, November 5th, 1880.

Sir Wyville Thomson and Natural Selection.

I am sorry to find that Sir Wyville Thomson does not understand the

principle of Natural Selection, as explained by Mr. Wallace and myself.

If he had done so, he could not have written the following sentence in

the Introduction to the Voyage of the "Challenger": "The character of

the abyssal fauna refuses to give the least support to the theory which

refers the evolution of species to extreme variation guided only by

Natural Selection." This is a standard of criticism not uncommonly

reached by theologians and metaphysicians, when they write on scientific

subjects, but is something new as coming from a naturalist. Professor

Huxley demurs to it in the last number of "Nature"; but he does not

touch on the expression of extreme variation, nor on that of evolution

being guided only by Natural Selection. Can Sir Wyville Thomson name any

one who has said that the evolution of species depends only on Natural

Selection? As far as concerns myself, I believe that no one has brought

forward so many observations on the effects of the use and disuse of

parts, as I have done in my "Variation of Animals and Plants under

Domestication"; and these observations were made for this special

object. I have likewise there adduced a considerable body of facts,

showing the direct action of external conditions on organisms; though no

doubt since my books were published much has been learnt on this head.

If Sir Wyville Thomson were to visit the yard of a breeder, and saw all

his cattle or sheep almost absolutely true--that is, closely similar, he

would exclaim: "Sir, I see here no extreme variation; nor can I find any

support to the belief that you have followed the principle of selection

in the breeding of your animals." From what I formerly saw of breeders,

I have no doubt that the man thus rebuked would have smiled and said not

a word. If he had afterwards told the story to other breeders, I greatly

fear that they would have used emphatic but irreverent language about

naturalists.

(301/2. The following is the passage omitted by the advice of Huxley:

see his "Life and Letters," II., page 14:--

"Perhaps it would have been wiser on my part to have remained quite

silent, like the breeder; for, as Prof. Sedgwick remarked many years

ago, in reference to the poor old Dean of York, who was never weary of

inveighing against geologists, a man who talks about what he does not in

the least understand, is invulnerable.")

LETTER 302. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(302/1. Part of this letter has been published in Mr. C. Barber's note

on "Graft-Hybrids of the Sugar-Cane," in "The Sugar-Cane," November

1896.)

Down, January 1st, 1881.

I send the MS., but as far as I can judge by just skimming it, it will

be of no use to you. It seems to bear on transitional forms. I feel sure

that I have other and better cases, but I cannot remember where to look.

I should have written to you in a few days on the following case. The

Baron de Villa Franca wrote to me from Brazil about two years ago,

describing new varieties of sugar-cane which he had raised by planting

two old varieties in apposition. I believe (but my memory is very

faulty) that I wrote that I could not believe in such a result, and

attributed the new varieties to the soil, etc. I believe that I did

not understand what he meant by apposition. Yesterday a packet of MS.

arrived from the Brazilian Legation, with a letter in French from Dr.

Glass, Director of the Botanic Gardens, describing fully how he first

attempted grafting varieties of sugar-cane in various ways, and always

failed, and then split stems of two varieties, bound them together and

planted them, and then raised some new and very valuable varieties,

which, like crossed plants, seem to grow with extra vigour, are

constant, and apparently partake of the character of the two varieties.

The Baron also sends me an attested copy from a number of Brazilian

cultivators of the success of the plan of raising new varieties. I

am not sure whether the Brazilian Legation wishes me to return the

document, but if I do not hear in three or four days that they must be

returned, they shall be sent to you, for they seem to me well deserving

your consideration.

Perhaps if I had been contented with my hyacinth bulbs being merely

bound together without any true adhesion or rather growth together, I

should have succeeded like the old Dutchman.

There is a deal of superfluous verbiage in the documents, but I have

marked with pencil where the important part begins. The attestations

are in duplicate. Now, after reading them will you give me your opinion

whether the main parts are worthy of publication in "Nature": I

am inclined to think so, and it is good to encourage science in

out-of-the-way parts of the world.

Keep this note till you receive the documents or hear from me. I wonder

whether two varieties of wheat could be similarly treated? No, I suppose

not--from the want of lateral buds. I was extremely interested by your

abstract on suicide.

LETTER 303. TO K. SEMPER. Down, February 6th, 1881.

Owing to all sorts of work, I have only just now finished reading your

"Natural Conditions of Existence." (303/1. Semper's "Natural Conditions

of Existence as they affect Animal Life" (International Science Series),

1881.) Although a book of small size, it contains an astonishing amount

of matter, and I have been particularly struck with the originality with

which you treat so many subjects, and at your scrupulous accuracy. In

far the greater number of points I quite follow you in your conclusions,

but I differ on some, and I suppose that no two men in the world would

fully agree on so many different subjects. I have been interested on

so many points, I can hardly say on which most. Perhaps as much on

Geographical Distribution as on any other, especially in relation to M.

Wagner. (No! no! about parasites interested me even more.) How strange

that Wagner should have thought that I meant by struggle for existence,

struggle for food. It is curious that he should not have thought of the

endless adaptations for the dispersal of seeds and the fertilisation of

flowers.

Again I was much interested about Branchipus and Artemia. (303/2. The

reference is to Schmankewitsch's experiments, page 158: he kept Artemia

salina in salt-water, gradually diluted with fresh-water until it became

practically free from salt; the crustaceans gradually changed in the

course of generations, until they acquired the characters of the genus

Branchipus.) When I read imperfectly some years ago the original paper

I could not avoid thinking that some special explanation would hereafter

be found for so curious a case. I speculated whether a species very

liable to repeated and great changes of conditions, might not acquire

a fluctuating condition ready to be adapted to either conditions. With

respect to Arctic animals being white (page 116 of your book) it might

perhaps be worth your looking at what I say from Pallas' and my own

observations in the "Descent of Man" (later editions) Chapter VIII.,

page 229, and Chapter XVIII., page 542.

I quite agree with what I gather to be your judgment, viz., that the

direct action of the conditions of life on organisms, or the cause of

their variability, is the most important of all subjects for the

future. For some few years I have been thinking of commencing a set of

experiments on plants, for they almost invariably vary when cultivated.

I fancy that I see my way with the aid of continued self-fertilisation.

But I am too old, and have not strength enough. Nevertheless the hope

occasionally revives.

Finally let me thank you for the very kind manner in which you often

refer to my works, and for the even still kinder manner in which you

disagree with me.

With cordial thanks for the pleasure and instruction which I have

derived from your book, etc.

LETTER 304. TO COUNT SAPORTA. Down, February 13th, 1881.

I received a week or two ago the work which you and Prof. Marion have

been so kind as to send me. (304/1. Probably "L'Evolution du Regne

vegetal," I. "Cryptogames," Saporta & Marion, Paris, 1881.) When it

arrived I was much engaged, and this must be my excuse for not having

sooner thanked you for it, and it will likewise account for my having as

yet read only the preface.

But I now look forward with great pleasure to reading the whole

immediately. If I then have any remarks worth sending, which is not very

probable, I will write again. I am greatly pleased to see how boldly

you express your belief in evolution, in the preface. I have sometimes

thought that some of your countrymen have been a little timid in

publishing their belief on this head, and have thus failed in aiding a

good cause.

LETTER 305. TO R.G. WHITEMAN. Down, May 5th, 1881.

In the first edition of the "Origin," after the sentence ending with the

words "...insects in the water," I added the following sentence:--

"Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were

constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the

country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by

Natural Selection more and more aquatic in their structures and habits,

with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous

as a whale." (305/1. See Letters 110 and 120.)

This sentence was omitted in the subsequent editions, owing to the

advice of Prof. Owen, as it was liable to be misinterpreted; but I have

always regretted that I followed this advice, for I still think the view

quite reasonable.

LETTER 306. TO A. HYATT. Down, May 8th, 1881.

I am much obliged for your kind gift of "The Genesis, etc." (306/1. "The

Genesis of the Tertiary Species of Planorbis," in the "Boston Soc. Nat.

Hist. Anniversary Mem." 1880.), which I shall be glad to read, as the

case has always seemed to me a very curious one. It is all the kinder in

you to send me this book, as I am aware that you think that I have done

nothing to advance the good cause of the Descent-theory. (306/2. The

above caused me to write a letter expressing a feeling of regret and

humiliation, which I hope is still preserved, for certainly such a

feeling, caused undoubtedly by my writings, which dealt too exclusively

with disagreements upon special points, needed a strong denial. I have

used the Darwinian theory in many cases, especially in explaining the

preservation of differences; and have denied its application only in the

preservation of fixed and hereditary characteristics, which have become

essentially homologous similarities. (Note by Prof. Hyatt.))

(306/3. We have ventured to quote the passage from Prof. Hyatt's reply,

dated May 23rd, 1881:--

"You would think I was insincere, if I wrote you what I really felt with

regard to what you have done for the theory of Descent. Perhaps this

essay will lead you to a more correct view than you now have of my

estimate, if I can be said to have any claim to make an estimate of your

work in this direction. You will not take offence, however, if I tell

you that your strongest supporters can hardly give you greater esteem

and honour. I have striven to get a just idea of your theory, but no

doubt have failed to convey this in my publications as it ought to be

done."

We find other equally strong and genuine expressions of respect in Prof.

Hyatt's letters.)

LETTER 307. TO LORD FARRER.

(307/1. Mr. Graham's book, the "Creed of Science," is referred to in

"Life and Letters," I., page 315, where an interesting letter to the

author is printed. With regard to chance, Darwin wrote: "You have

expressed my inward conviction, though far more clearly and vividly than

I could have done, that the universe is not the result of chance.")

Down, August 28th, 1881.

I have been much interested by your letter, and am glad that you like

Mr. Graham's book...(307/2. In Lord Farrer's letter of August 27th he

refers to the old difficulty, in relation to design, of the existence of

evil.)

Everything which I read now soon goes out of my head, and I had

forgotten that he implies that my views explain the universe; but it is

a most monstrous exaggeration. The more one thinks the more one feels

the hopeless immensity of man's ignorance. Though it does make one proud

to see what science has achieved during the last half-century. This

has been brought vividly before my mind by having just read most of the

proofs of Lubbock's Address for York (307/3. Lord Avebury was President

of the British Association in 1881.), in which he will attempt to review

the progress of all branches of science for the last fifty years.

I entirely agree with what you say about "chance," except in relation

to the variations of organic beings having been designed; and I imagine

that Mr. Graham must have used "chance" in relation only to purpose in

the origination of species. This is the only way I have used the word

chance, as I have attempted to explain in the last two pages of my

"Variation under Domestication."

On the other hand, if we consider the whole universe, the mind refuses

to look at it as the outcome of chance--that is, without design or

purpose. The whole question seems to me insoluble, for I cannot put much

or any faith in the so-called intuitions of the human mind, which have

been developed, as I cannot doubt, from such a mind as animals possess;

and what would their convictions or intuitions be worth? There are a

good many points on which I cannot quite follow Mr. Graham.

With respect to your last discussion, I dare say it contains very much

truth; but I cannot see, as far as happiness is concerned, that it can

apply to the infinite sufferings of animals--not only those of the body,

but those of the mind--as when a mother loses her offspring or a male

his female. If the view does not apply to animals, will it suffice for

man? But you may well complain of this long and badly-expressed note in

my dreadfully bad handwriting.

The death of my brother Erasmus is a very heavy loss to all of us in

this family. He was so kind-hearted and affectionate. Nor have I ever

known any one more pleasant. It was always a very great pleasure to talk

with him on any subject whatever, and this I shall never do again.

The clearness of his mind always seemed to me admirable. He was not, I

think, a happy man, and for many years did not value life, though never

complaining. I am so glad that he escaped very severe suffering during

his last few days. I shall never see such a man again.

Forgive me for scribbling this way, my dear Farrer.

LETTER 308. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(308/1. Romanes had reviewed Roux's "Struggle of Parts in the Organism"

in "Nature," September 20th, 1881, page 505. This led to an attack by

the Duke of Argyll (October 20th, page 581), followed by a reply by

Romanes (October 27th, page 604), a rejoinder by the Duke (November 3rd,

page 6), and finally by the letter of Romanes (November 10th, page 29)

to which Darwin refers. The Duke's "flourish" is at page 7: "I wish Mr.

Darwin's disciples would imitate a little of the dignified reticence of

their master. He walks with a patient and a stately step along the paths

of conscientious observation, etc., etc.")

Down, November 12th, 1881.

I must write to say how very much I admire your letter in the last

"Nature." I subscribe to every word that you say, and it could not be

expressed more clearly or vigorously. After the Duke's last letter and

flourish about me I thought it paltry not to say that I agreed with what

you had said. But after writing two folio pages I find I could not say

what I wished to say without taking up too much space; and what I had

written did not please me at all, so I tore it up, and now by all the

gods I rejoice that I did so, for you have put the case incomparably

better than I had done or could do.

Moreover, I hate controversy, and it wastes much time, at least with a

man who, like myself, can work for only a short time in a day. How in

the world you get through all your work astonishes me.

Now do not make me feel guilty by answering this letter, and losing some

of your time.

You ought not to swear at Roux's book, which has led you into this

controversy, for I am sure that your last letter was well worth

writing--not that it will produce any effect on the Duke.

LETTER 309. TO J. JENNER WEIR.

(309/1. On December 27th, 1881, Mr. Jenner Weir wrote to Mr. Darwin:

"After some hesitation in lieu of a Christmas card, I venture to give

you the return of some observations on mules made in Spain during the

last two years...It is a fact that the sire has the prepotency in

the offspring, as has been observed by most writers on that subject,

including yourself. The mule is more ass-like, and the hinny more

horse-like, both in the respective lengths of the ears and the shape of

the tail; but one point I have observed which I do not remember to have

met with, and that is that the coat of the mule resembles that of its

dam the mare, and that of the hinny its dam the ass, so that in this

respect the prepotency of the sexes is reversed." The hermaphroditism in

lepidoptera, referred to below, is said by Mr. Weir to occur notably in

the case of the hybrids of Smerinthus populi-ocellatus.)

Down, December 29th, 1881.

I thank you for your "Christmas card," and heartily return your good

wishes. What you say about the coats of mules is new to me, as is the

statement about hermaphroditism in hybrid moths. This latter fact seems

to me particularly curious; and to make a very wild hypothesis, I should

be inclined to account for it by reversion to the primordial condition

of the two sexes being united, for I think it certain that hybridism

does lead to reversion.

I keep fairly well, but have not much strength, and feel very old.

LETTER 310. TO R. MELDOLA. Down, February 2nd, 1882.

I am very sorry that I can add nothing to my very brief notice, without

reading again Weismann's work and getting up the whole subject by

reading my own and other books, and for so much labour I have not

strength. I have now been working at other subjects for some years, and

when a man grows as old as I am, it is a great wrench to his brain to go

back to old and half-forgotten subjects. You would not readily believe

how often I am asked questions of all kinds, and quite lately I have

had to give up much time to do a work, not at all concerning myself,

but which I did not like to refuse. I must, however, somewhere draw the

line, or my life will be a misery to me.

I have read your preface, and it seems to me excellent. (310/1. "Studies

in the Theory of Descent." By A. Weismann. Translated and Edited by

Raphael Meldola; with a Prefatory Notice by C. Darwin and a Translator's

Preface. See Letter 291.) I am sorry in many ways, including the honour

of England as a scientific country, that your translation has as yet

sold badly. Does the publisher or do you lose by it? If the publisher,

though I shall be sorry for him, yet it is in the way of business; but

if you yourself lose by it, I earnestly beg you to allow me to subscribe

a trifle, viz., ten guineas, towards the expense of this work, which you

have undertaken on public grounds.

LETTER 311. TO W. HORSFALL. Down, February 8th, 1882.

In the succession of the older Formations the species and genera of

trilobites do change, and then they all die out. To any one who believes

that geologists know the dawn of life (i.e., formations contemporaneous

with the first appearance of living creatures on the earth) no doubt

the sudden appearance of perfect trilobites and other organisms in the

oldest known life-bearing strata would be fatal to evolution. But I for

one, and many others, utterly reject any such belief. Already three or

four piles of unconformable strata are known beneath the Cambrian; and

these are generally in a crystalline condition, and may once have been

charged with organic remains.

With regard to animals and plants, the locomotive spores of some algae,

furnished with cilia, would have been ranked with animals if it had not

been known that they developed into algae.

LETTER 312. TO JOHN COLLIER. Down, February 16th, 1882.

I must thank you for the gift of your Art Primer, which I have read with

much pleasure. Parts were too technical for me who could never draw a

line, but I was greatly interested by the whole of the first part. I

wish that you could explain why certain curved lines and symmetrical

figures give pleasure. But will not your brother artists scorn you for

showing yourself so good an evolutionist? Perhaps they will say that

allowance must be made for him, as he has allied himself to so dreadful

a man as Huxley. This reminds me that I have just been reading the last

volume of essays. By good luck I had not read that on Priestley (312/1.

"Science and Culture, and other Essays": London, 1881. The fifth Essay

is on Joseph Priestley (page 94).), and it strikes me as the most

splendid essay which I ever read. That on automatism (312/2. Essay IX.

(page 199) is entitled "On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and

its history.") is wonderfully interesting: more is the pity, say I, for

if I were as well armed as Huxley I would challenge him to a duel on

this subject. But I am a deal too wise to do anything of the kind, for

he would run me through the body half a dozen times with his sharp and

polished rapier before I knew where I was. I did not intend to have

scribbled all this nonsense, but only to have thanked you for your

present.

Everybody whom I have seen and who has seen your picture of me is

delighted with it. I shall be proud some day to see myself suspended at

the Linnean Society. (312/3. The portrait painted by Mr. Collier hangs

in the meeting-room of the Linnean Society.)