More Letters of Charles Darwin _ Volume 1 Charles Darwin 10333 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of More Letters of Charles
Darwin — Volume 1
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: More Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 1

Author: Charles Darwin

Editor: Sir Francis Darwin
A. C. Seward

Release date: July 1, 2001 [eBook #2739]
Most recently updated: January 23, 2013

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2739

Credits: Produced by Sue Asscher, and David Widger

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MORE
LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN — VOLUME 1 ***

MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES
DARWIN

By Charles Darwin

A RECORD OF HIS WORK IN A SERIES OF HITHERTO
UNPUBLISHED LETTERS

EDITED BY FRANCIS DARWIN, FELLOW OF CHRIST'S
COLLEGE,
AND A.C. SEWARD, FELLOW OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE,
CAMBRIDGE

IN TWO VOLUMES

Transcriber's Notes:
All biographical footnotes appear at the end of
Volume II.
All other notes by Charles Darwin's editors appear
in the text, in brackets () with a Chapter/Note or
Letter/Note number.

VOLUME I.
DEDICATED WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT, TO

SIR JOSEPH HOOKER

IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIS LIFELONG FRIENDSHIP WITH
CHARLES DARWIN

"You will never know how much I owe to you for your constant
kindness and encouragement"

CHARLES DARWIN TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER, SEPTEMBER 14,
1862

PREFACE
The "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" was published in 1887. Since
that date, through the kindness of various correspondents, additional letters
have been received; among them may be mentioned those written by Mr.
Darwin to Mr. Belt, Lady Derby, Hugh Falconer, Mr. Francis Galton,
Huxley, Lyell, Mr. John Morley, Max Muller, Owen, Lord Playfair, John
Scott, Thwaites, Sir William Turner, John Jenner Weir. But the material for
our work consisted in chief part of a mass of letters which, for want of
space or for other reasons, were not printed in the "Life and Letters." We
would draw particular attention to the correspondence with Sir Joseph
Hooker. To him Mr. Darwin wrote with complete freedom, and this has
given something of a personal charm to the most technical of his letters.
There is also much correspondence, hardly inferior in biographical interest,
with Sir Charles Lyell, Fritz Muller, Mr. Huxley, and Mr. Wallace. From
this unused material we have been able to compile an almost complete
record of Mr. Darwin's work in a series of letters now published for the first
time. We have, however, in a few instances, repeated paragraphs, or in one
or two cases whole letters, from the "Life and Letters," where such
repetition seemed necessary for the sake of clearness or continuity.
Our two volumes contain practically all the matter that it now seems
desirable to publish. But at some future time others may find interesting
data in what remains unprinted; this is certainly true of a short series of
letters dealing with the Cirripedes, which are omitted solely for want of
space. (Preface/1. Those addressed to the late Albany Hancock have already
appeared in the "Transactions of the Tyneside Nat. Field Club," VIII., page
250.)
We are fortunate in being permitted, by Sir Joseph Hooker and by Mr.
Wallace, to publish certain letters from them to Mr. Darwin. We have also
been able to give a few letters from Sir Charles Lyell, Hugh Falconer,
Edward Forbes, Dr. Asa Gray, Professor Hyatt, Fritz Muller, Mr. Francis
Galton, and Sir T. Lauder Brunton. To the two last named, also to Mrs.
Lyell (the biographer of Sir Charles), Mrs. Asa Gray and Mrs. Hyatt, we
desire to express our grateful acknowledgments.

The present volumes have been prepared, so as to give as full an idea as
possible of the course of Mr. Darwin's work. The volumes therefore
necessarily contain many letters of a highly technical character, but none,
we hope, which are not essentially interesting. With a view to saving space,
we have confined ourselves to elucidating the letters by full annotations,
and have for the same reason—though with some regret—omitted in most
cases the beginnings and endings of the letters. For the main facts of Mr.
Darwin's life, we refer our readers to the abstract of his private Diary, given
in the present volume.
Mr. Darwin generally wrote his letters when he was tired or hurried, and
this often led to the omission of words. We have usually inserted the
articles, and this without any indication of their absence in the originals.
Where there seemed any possibility of producing an alteration of meaning
(and in many cases where there is no such possibility) we have placed the
introduced words in square brackets. We may say once for all that
throughout the book square brackets indicate words not found in the
originals. (Preface/2. Except in a few places where brackets are used to
indicate passages previously published. In all such cases the meaning of the
symbol is explained.) Dots indicate omissions, but many omissions are
made without being so indicated.
The selection and arrangement of the letters have not been easy. Our plan
has been to classify the letters according to subject—into such as deal with
Evolution, Geographical Distribution, Botany, etc., and in each group to
place the letters chronologically. But in several of the chapters we have
adopted sectional headings, which we believe will be a help to the reader.
The great difficulty lay in deciding in which of the chief groups a given
letter should be placed. If the MS. had been cut up into paragraphs, there
would have been no such difficulty; but we feel strongly that a letter should
as far as possible be treated as a whole. We have in fact allowed this
principle to interfere with an accurate classification, so that the reader will
find, for instance, in the chapters on Evolution, questions considered which
might equally well have come under Geographical Distribution or Geology,
or questions in the chapter on Man which might have been placed under the
heading Evolution. In the same way, to avoid mutilation, we have allowed
references to one branch of science to remain in letters mainly concerned
with another subject. For these irregularities we must ask the reader's

patience, and beg him to believe that some pains have been devoted to
arrangement.
Mr. Darwin, who was careful in other things, generally omitted the date
in familiar correspondence, and it is often only by treating a letter as a
detective studies a crime that we can make sure of its date. Fortunately,
however, Sir Joseph Hooker and others of Darwin's correspondents were
accustomed to add the date on which the letters were received. This
sometimes leads to an inaccuracy which needs a word of explanation. Thus
a letter which Mr. Darwin dated "Wednesday" might be headed by us
"Wednesday {January 3rd, 1867}," the latter half being the date on which
the letter was received; if it had been dated by the writer it would have been
"Wednesday, January 2nd, 1867."
In thanking those friends—especially Sir Joseph Hooker and Mr. Wallace
—who have looked through some of our proof-sheets, we wish to make it
clear that they are not in the smallest degree responsible for our errors or
omissions; the weight of our shortcomings rests on us alone.
We desire to express our gratitude to those who have so readily supplied
us with information, especially to Sir Joseph Hooker, Professor Judd,
Professor Newton, Dr. Sharp, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and Mr. Wallace. And
we have pleasure in mentioning Mr. H.W. Rutherford, of the University
Library, to whose conscientious work as a copyist we are much indebted.
Finally, it is a pleasure to express our obligation to those who have
helped us in the matter of illustrations. The portraits of Dr. Asa Gray, Mr.
Huxley, Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Romanes, are from their respective
Biographies, and for permission to make use of them we have to thank Mrs.
Gray, Mr. L. Huxley, Mrs. Lyell, and Mrs. Romanes, as well as the
publishers of the books in question. For the reproduction of the early
portrait of Mr. Darwin we are indebted to Miss Wedgwood; for the
interesting portraits of Hugh Falconer and Edward Forbes we have to thank
Mr. Irvine Smith, who obtained for us the negatives; these being of paper,
and nearly sixty years old, rendered their reproduction a work of some
difficulty. We also thank Messrs. Elliott & Fry for very kindly placing at our
disposal a negative of the fine portrait, which forms the frontispiece to
Volume II. For the opportunity of making facsimiles of diagrams in certain
of the letters, we are once more indebted to Sir Joseph Hooker, who has
most generously given the original letters to Mr. Darwin's family.

Cambridge, October, 1902.

Contents

PREFACE
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN.
VOLUME I.
OUTLINE OF CHARLES DARWIN'S LIFE.
CHARLES DARWIN
CHAPTER 1.I.—AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL FRAGMENT,
AND EARLY LETTERS.
CHAPTER 1.II.—EVOLUTION, 1844-1858.
CHAPTER 1.III.—EVOLUTION, 1859-1863.
CHAPTER 1.IV.—EVOLUTION, 1864-1869.
CHAPTER 1.V.—EVOLUTION, 1870-1882.
CHAPTER 1.VI.—GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, 1843-
1867.

Next Volume

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.
Outline of Charles Darwin's Life, etc.
CHAPTER 1.I.—An Autobiographical Fragment, and Early
Letters,
1809-1842.
CHAPTER 1.II.—Evolution, 1844-1858.
CHAPTER 1.III.—Evolution, 1859-1863.
CHAPTER 1.IV.—Evolution, 1864-1869.
CHAPTER 1.V.—Evolution, 1870-1882.
CHAPTER 1.VI.—Geographical Distribution, 1843-1867.
ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME I.
CHARLES AND CATHERINE DARWIN, 1816. From a
coloured chalk drawing by
Sharples, in possession of Miss Wedgwood, of Leith Hill
Place.
MRS. DARWIN, 1881. From a photograph by Barraud.
EDWARD FORBES, 1844 (?). From a photograph by Hill &
Adamson.
THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, 1857. From a photograph by
Maull & Fox. (Huxley's
"Life," Volume I.)
PROFESSOR HENSLOW. From a photograph.
HUGH FALCONER, 1844. From a photograph by Hill &
Adamson.
JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER, 1870 (?). From a photograph
by Wallich.
ASA GRAY, 1867. From a photograph. ("Letters of Asa
Gray," Volume I.)
VOLUME II
CHAPTER 2.VII.—Geographical Distribution, 1867-1882.
CHAPTER 2.VIII.—Man, 1860-1882. 2.VIII.I. Descent of
Man, 1860-1882.

2.VIII.II. Sexual Selection, 1866-1872. 2.VIII.III.
Expression,
1868-1874.
CHAPTER 2.IX.—Geology, 1840-1882. 2.IX.I. Vulcanicity
and
Earth-movements, 1840-1881. 2.IX.II. Ice-action, 1841-
1882. 2.IX.III.
The Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, 1841-1880. 2.IX.IV. Coral
Reefs, Fossil
and Recent, 1841-1881. 2.IX.V. Cleavage and Foliation,
1846-1856.
2.IX.VI. Age of the World, 1868-1877. 2.IX.VII. Geological
Action of
Earth-worms, 1880-1882. 2.IX.VIII. Miscellaneous, 1846-
1878.
CHAPTER 2.X.—Botany, 1843-1871. 2.X.I. Miscellaneous,
1843-1862.
2.X.II. Melastomaceae, 1862-1881. 2.X.III. Correspondence
with John
Scott, 1862-1871.
CHAPTER 2.XI.—Botany, 1863-1881. 2.XI.I. Miscellaneous,
1863-1866.
2.XI.II. Correspondence with Fritz Muller, 1865-1881.
2.XI.III.
Miscellaneous, 1868-1881.
CHAPTER 2.XII.—Vivisection and Miscellaneous Subjects,
1867-1882.
2.XII.I. Vivisection, 1875-1882. 2.XII.II. Miscellaneous
Subjects,
1867-1882.
ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME II.
CHARLES DARWIN, 1881. From a photograph by Elliott &
Fry.
ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, 1878. From a photograph by
Maull & Fox.
GEORGE J. ROMANES, 1891. From a photograph by
Elliott & Fry. (Romanes'

"Life.")
CHARLES LYELL. From a photograph by Maull & Fox.
(Lyell's "Life," Volume
II.)
CHARLES DARWIN, 1854 (?). From a photograph by Maull
& Fox.
FRITZ MULLER. From a photograph.
FACSIMILES OF SKETCHES IN THE LETTERS.
FIGURE 1. Hypothetical Section Illustrating Continental
Elevation.
FIGURE 2. Diagram of Junction between Dike and Lava.
FIGURE 3. Outline of an Elliptic Crater.
FIGURE 4. Hypothetical Section showing the Relation of
Dikes to Volcanic
Vents.
FIGURE 5. Map illustrating the Linear Arrangement of
Volcanic Islands in
relation to Continental Coast-lines.
FIGURE 6. Sketch showing the Form and Distribution of
Quartz in a
Foliated Rock.
FIGURE 7. Sketch showing the Arrangement of Felspar and
Quartz in a
Metamorphic Series.
FIGURE 8. Floral Diagram of an Orchid.
FIGURE 9. Dissected Flower of Habenaria Chlorantha.
FIGURE 10. Diagram of a Cruciferous Flower.
FIGURE 11. Longitudinal Section of a Cruciferous Flower.
FIGURE 12. Transverse Section of the Ovary of a Crucifer.
FIGURE 13. (Contents/1. Not a facsimile.) Leaf of Trifolium
resupinatum.
(Drawn by Miss Pertz.)

MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES
DARWIN.

VOLUME I.

OUTLINE OF CHARLES DARWIN'S LIFE.
BASED ON HIS DIARY, DATED AUGUST 1838.

References to the Journals in which Mr. Darwin's papers were published
will be found in his "Life and Letters" III., Appendix II. We are greatly
indebted to Mr. C.F. Cox, of New York, for calling our attention to mistakes
in the Appendix, and we take this opportunity of correcting them.
Appendix II., List ii.—Mr. Romanes spoke on Mr. Darwin's essay on
Instinct at a meeting of the Linnean Society, December 6th, 1883, and some
account of it is given in "Nature" of the same date. But it was not published
by the Linnean Society.
Appendix II., List iii.—"Origin of saliferous deposits. Salt lakes of
Patagonia and La Plata" (1838). This is the heading of an extract from
Darwin's volume on South America reprinted in the "Quarterly Journal of
the Geological Society," Volume II., Part ii., "Miscellanea," pages 127-8,
1846.
The paper on "Analogy of the Structure of some Volcanic Rocks, etc."
was published in 1845, not in 1851.
A paper "On the Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency," in the
"Entomologist's Weekly Intelligencer" viii., and "Gardeners' Chronicle,"
June 9th, 1860, should be inserted in the bibliography.
1809. February 12th: Born at Shrewsbury.
1817. Death of his mother.
1818. Went to Shrewsbury School.
1825. Left Shrewsbury School.
1826.
October: Went to Edinburgh University. Read two papers before the
Plinian Society of Edinburgh "at the close of 1826 or early in 1827."
1827. Entered at Christ's College, Cambridge.
1828. Began residence at Cambridge.

1831.
January: Passed his examination for B.A., and kept the two following
terms.
August: Geological tour with Sedgwick.
September 11th: Went to Plymouth to see the "Beagle."
October 2nd: "Took leave of my home."
December 27th: "Sailed from England on our circumnavigation."
1832.
January 16th: "First landed on a tropical shore" (Santiago).
1833.
December 6th: "Sailed for last time from Rio Plata."
1834.
June 10th: "Sailed for last time from Tierra del Fuego."
1835.
September 5th: "Sailed from west shores of South America."
November 16th: Letters to Professor Henslow, read at a meeting of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society.
November 18th: Paper read before the Geological Society on Notes made
during a Survey of the East and West Coasts of South America in years
1832-35.
1836.
May 31st: Anchored at the Cape of Good Hope.
October 2nd: Anchored at Falmouth.
October 4th: Reached Shrewsbury after an absence of five years and two
days.
December 13th: Went to live at Cambridge.
1837.
January 4th: Paper on Recent Elevation in Chili read.
March 13th: Settled at 36, Great Marlborough Street.
March 14th: Paper on "Rhea" read.
May: Read papers on Coral Formation, and on the Pampas, to the
Geological Society.

July: Opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species.
March 13th to November: Occupied with his Journal.
October and November: Preparing the scheme for the Zoology of the
Voyage of the "Beagle." Working at Geology of South America.
November 1st: Read the paper on Earthworms before the Geological
Society.
1838.
Worked at the Geology of South America and Zoology of Voyage. "Some
little species theory."
March 7th: Read paper on the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena
and on the Formation of Mountain Chains, to the Geological Society.
May: Health began to break down.
June 23rd: Started for Glen Roy. The paper on Glen Roy was written in
August and September.
October 5th: Began Coral paper.
November 11th: Engaged to be married to his cousin, Emma Wedgwood.
December 31st: "Entered 12 Upper Gower Street."
1839.
January 29th: Married at Maer.
February and March: Some work on Corals and on Species Theory.
March (part) and April: Working at Coral paper. Papers on a Rock seen
on an Iceberg, and on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. Published "Journal
and Remarks," being volume iii. of the "Narrative of the Surveying Voyages
of H.M.S. 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,' etc." For the rest of the year, Corals and
Zoology of the Voyage. Publication of the "Zoology of the Voyage of
H.M.S. 'Beagle,'" Part II. (Mammalia).
1840.
Worked at Corals and the Zoology of the Voyage. Contributed Geological
introduction to Part I. of the "Zoology of the Voyage" (Fossil Mammalia by
Owen).
1841.
Publication of Part III. of the "Zoology of the Voyage" (Birds). Read
paper on Boulders and Glacial Deposits of South America, to Geological

Society. Published paper on a remarkable bar of Sandstone off Pernambuco,
on the coast of Brazil. Publication of Part IV. of "Zoology of the Voyage"
(Fish).
1842.
May 6th: Last proof of the Coral book corrected.
June: Examined Glacier action in Wales. "Wrote pencil sketch of my
Species Theory."
July: Wrote paper on Glaciers of Caernarvonshire.
October: Began his book on Volcanic Islands.
1843.
Working at "Volcanic Islands" and "some Species work."
1844.
February 13th: Finished "Volcanic Islands."
July to September: Wrote an enlarged version of Species Theory. Papers
on Sagitta, and on Planaria.
July 27th: Began his book on the Geology of South America.
1845.
Paper on the Analogy of the Structure of Volcanic Rocks with that of
Glaciers. "Proc. R. Soc. Edin."
April 25th to August 25th: Working at second edition of "Naturalist's
Voyage."
1846.
October 1st: Finished last proof of "Geological Observations on South
America." Papers on Atlantic Dust, and on Geology of Falkland Islands,
communicated to the Geological Society. Paper on Arthrobalanus.
1847.
Working at Cirripedes. Review of Waterhouse's "Natural History of the
Mammalia."
1848.
March 20th: Finished Scientific Instructions in Geology for the
Admiralty Manual. Working at Cirripedes. Paper on Erratic Boulders.
1849.

Health especially bad. Working at Cirripedes.
March-June: Water-cure at Malvern.
1850.
Working at Cirripedes. Published Monographs of Recent and Fossil
Lepadidae.
1852.
Working at Cirripedes.
1853.
November 30th: "Royal Medal given to me."
1854.
Published Monographs on Recent and on Fossil Balanidae and
Verrucidae.
September 9th: Finished packing up all my Cirripedes. "Began sorting
notes for Species Theory."
1855.
March-April: Experiments on the effect of salt water on seeds. Papers on
Icebergs and on Vitality of Seeds.
1856.
May 14th: "Began, by Lyell's advice, writing Species Sketch" (described
in "Life and Letters" as the "Unfinished Book").
December 16th: Finished Chapter III. Paper read to Linnean Society, On
Sea-water and the Germination of Seeds.
1857.
September 29th: Finished Chapters VII. and VIII.
September 30th to December 29th: Working on Hybridism. Paper on the
Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers.
1858.
March 9th: "Finished Instinct chapter."
June 18th: Received Mr. Wallace's sketch of his evolutionary theory.
July 1st: Joint paper of Darwin and Wallace read at the Linnean Society.
July 20th to July 27th: "Began Abstract of Species book," i.e., the "Origin
of Species," at Sandown, I.W. Paper on Bees and Fertilisation of Flowers.

1859.
May 25th: Began proof-sheets of the "Origin of Species."
November 24th: Publication of the "Origin": 1250 copies printed.
October 2nd to December 9th: At the water-cure establishment, Ilkley,
Yorkshire.
1860.
January 7th: Publication of Edition II. of "Origin" (3000 copies).
January 9th: "Looking over MS. on Variation." Paper on the Fertilisation
of British Orchids.
July and again in September: Made observations on Drosera. Paper on
Moths and Flowers. Publication of "A Naturalist's Voyage."
1861.
Up to July at work on "Variation under Domestication."
April 30th: Publication of Edition III. of "Origin" (2000 copies).
July to the end of year: At work on Orchids.
November: Primula paper read at Linnean Society. Papers on Pumilio
and on Fertilisation of Vinca.
1862.
May 15th: Orchid book published. Working at Variation. Paper on
Catasetum (Linnean Society). Contribution to Chapter III. of Jenyns'
Memoir of Henslow.
1863.
Working at "Variation under Domestication." Papers on Yellow Rain, the
Pampas, and on Cirripedes. A review of Bates' paper on Mimetic
Butterflies. Severe illness to the end of year.
1864.
Illness continued until April. Paper on Linum published by the Linnean
Society.
May 25th: Paper on Lythrum finished.
September 13th: Paper on Climbing Plants finished. Work on "Variation
under Domestication."
November 30th: Copley medal awarded to him.

1865.
January 1st: Continued at work on Variation until April 22nd. The work
was interrupted by illness until late in the autumn.
February: Read paper on Climbing Plants.
December 25th: Began again on Variation.
1866.
Continued work at "Variation under Domestication."
March 1st to May 10th: At work on Edition IV. of the "Origin." Published
June (1250 copies). Read paper on Cytisus scoparius to the Linnean
Society.
December 22nd: Began the last chapter of "Variation under
Domestication."
1867.
November 15th: Finished revises of "Variation under Domestication."
December: Began papers on Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and
Trimorphic Plants, and on Primula.
1868.
January 30th: Publication of "Variation under Domestication."
February 4th: Began work on Man.
February 10th: New edition of "Variation under Domestication." Read
papers on Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants, and on
Verbascum.
1869.
February 10th: "Finished fifth edition of 'Origin'; has taken me forty-six
days."
Edition V. published in May.
Working at the "Descent of Man." Papers on the Fertilisation of Orchids,
and on the Fertilisation of Winter-flowering Plants.
1870.
Working at the "Descent of Man." Paper on the Pampas Woodpecker.
1871.
January 17th: Began the "Expression of the Emotions."

February 24th: "Descent of Man" published (2500 copies).
April 27th: Finished the rough copy of "Expression."
June 18th: Began Edition VI. of "Origin." Paper on the Fertilisation of
Leschenaultia.
1872.
January 10th: Finished proofs of Edition VI. of the "Origin," and "again
rewriting 'Expression.'"
August 22nd: Finished last proofs of "Expression."
August 23rd: Began working at Drosera.
November: "Expression" published (7000 copies, and 2000 more printed
at the end of the year.)
November 8th: "At Murray's sale 5267 copies sold to London
booksellers."
1873.
January: Correcting the Climbing Plants paper for publication as a book.
February 3rd: At work on "Cross-fertilisation."
February to September: Contributions to "Nature."
June 14th: "Began Drosera again."
November 20th: Began "Descent of Man," Edition II.
1874.
"Descent of Man," Edition II, in one volume, published (Preface dated
September). "Coral Reefs," Edition II., published.
April 1st: Began "Insectivorous Plants."
February to May: Contributed notes to "Nature."
1875.
July 2nd: "Insectivorous Plants" published (3000 copies); 2700 copies
sold immediately.
July 6th: "Correcting 2nd edition of 'Variation under Domestication.'" It
was published in the autumn.
September 1st (approximately): Began on "Cross and Self-Fertilisation."
November: Vivisection Commission.
1876.

May 5th: "Finished MS., first time over, of 'Cross and Self-Fertilisation.'"
May to June: Correction of "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II. Wrote
his Autobiographical Sketch.
May and November: Contributions to "Nature."
August 19th: First proofs of "Cross and Self-Fertilisation."
November 10th: "Cross and Self-Fertilisation" published (1500 copies).
1877.
"All the early part of summer at work on 'Different Forms of Flowers.'"
July: Publication of "Different Forms of Flowers" (1250 copies). During
the rest of the year at work on the bloom on leaves, movements of plants,
"and a little on worms."
November: LL.D. at Cambridge. Second edition of "Fertilisation of
Orchids" published. Contributions to "Nature," "Gardeners' Chronicle," and
"Mind."
1878.
The whole year at work on movements of plants, and on the bloom on
leaves.
May: Contribution to "Nature." Second edition of "Different Forms of
Flowers." Wrote prefatory letter to Kerner's "Flowers and their Unbidden
Guests."
1879.
The whole year at work on movements of plants, except for "about six
weeks" in the spring and early summer given to the "Life of Erasmus
Darwin," which was published in the autumn. Contributions to "Nature."
1880. "All spring finishing MS. of 'Power of Movement in Plants' and
proof sheets." "Began in autumn on Worms." Prefatory notice written for
Meldola's translation of Weismann's book.
November 6th: 1500 copies of "Power of Movement" sold at Murray's
sale. Contributions to "Nature."
1881.
During all the early part of the year at work on the "Worm book." Several
contributions to "Nature."

October 10th: The book on "Earthworms" published: 2000 copies sold at
once.
November: At work on the action of carbonate of ammonia on plants.
1882.
No entries in the Diary.
February: At work correcting the sixth thousand of the "Earthworms."
March 6th and March 16th: Papers on the action of Carbonate of
Ammonia on roots, etc., read at the Linnean Society.
April 6th: Note to "Nature" on Dispersal of Bivalves.
April 18th: Van Dyck's paper on Syrian Dogs, with a preliminary notice
by Charles Darwin, read before the Zoological Society.
April 19th: Charles Darwin died at Down.

CHARLES DARWIN

CHAPTER 1.I.—AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL
FRAGMENT, AND EARLY LETTERS.
1809-1842.

(Chapter I./1. In the process of removing the remainder of Mr. Darwin's
books and papers from Down, the following autobiographical notes, written
in 1838, came to light. They seem to us worth publishing—both as giving
some new facts, and also as illustrating the interest which he clearly felt in
his own development. Many words are omitted in the manuscript, and some
names incorrectly spelled; the corrections which have been made are not
always indicated.)
My earliest recollection, the date of which I can approximately tell, and
which must have been before I was four years old, was when sitting on
Caroline's (Caroline Darwin) knee in the drawing room, whilst she was
cutting an orange for me, a cow ran by the window which made me jump,
so that I received a bad cut, of which I bear the scar to this day. Of this
scene I recollect the place where I sat and the cause of the fright, but not the
cut itself, and I think my memory is real, and not as often happens in similar
cases, {derived} from hearing the thing often repeated, {when} one obtains
so vivid an image, that it cannot be separated from memory: because I
clearly remember which way the cow ran, which would not probably have
been told me. My memory here is an obscure picture, in which from not
recollecting any pain I am scarcely conscious of its reference to myself.
1813.
When I was four years and a half old I went to the sea, and stayed there
some weeks. I remember many things, but with the exception of the
maidservants (and these are not individualised) I recollect none of my
family who were there. I remember either myself or Catherine being
naughty, and being shut up in a room and trying to break the windows. I
have an obscure picture of a house before my eyes, and of a neighbouring
small shop, where the owner gave me one fig, but which to my great joy
turned out to be two: this fig was given me that the man might kiss the

maidservant. I remember a common walk to a kind of well, on the road to
which was a cottage shaded with damascene (Chapter I./2. Damson is
derived from Damascene; the fruit was formerly known as a "Damask
Prune.") trees, inhabited by an old man, called a hermit, with white hair,
who used to give us damascenes. I know not whether the damascenes, or
the reverence and indistinct fear for this old man produced the greatest
effect on my memory. I remember when going there crossing in the carriage
a broad ford, and fear and astonishment of white foaming water has made a
vivid impression. I think memory of events commences abruptly; that is, I
remember these earliest things quite as clearly as others very much later in
life, which were equally impressed on me. Some very early recollections
are connected with fear at Parkfield and with poor Betty Harvey. I
remember with horror her story of people being pushed into the canal by the
towing rope, by going the wrong side of the horse. I had the greatest horror
of this story—keen instinct against death. Some other recollections are
those of vanity—namely, thinking that people were admiring me, in one
instance for perseverance and another for boldness in climbing a low tree,
and what is odder, a consciousness, as if instinctive, that I was vain, and
contempt of myself. My supposed admirer was old Peter Haile the
bricklayer, and the tree the mountain ash on the lawn. All my recollections
seem to be connected most closely with myself; now Catherine (Catherine
Darwin) seems to recollect scenes where others were the chief actors. When
my mother died I was 8 1/2 years old, and {Catherine} one year less, yet
she remembers all particulars and events of each day whilst I scarcely
recollect anything (and so with very many other cases) except being sent
for, the memory of going into her room, my father meeting me—crying
afterwards. I recollect my mother's gown and scarcely anything of her
appearance, except one or two walks with her. I have no distinct
remembrance of any conversation, and those only of a very trivial nature. I
remember her saying "if she did ask me to do something," which I said she
had, "it was solely for my good."
Catherine remembers my mother crying, when she heard of my
grandmother's death. Also when at Parkfield how Aunt Sarah and Aunt
Kitty used to receive her. Susan, like me, only remembers affairs personal.
It is sufficiently odd this {difference} in subjects remembered. Catherine
says she does not remember the impression made upon her by external
things, as scenery, but for things which she reads she has an excellent

memory, i.e., for ideas. Now her sympathy being ideal, it is part of her
character, and shows how easily her kind of memory was stamped, a vivid
thought is repeated, a vivid impression forgotten.
I remember obscurely the illumination after the battle of Waterloo, and
the Militia exercising about that period, in the field opposite our house.
1817.
At 8 1/2 years old I went to Mr. Case's School. (Chapter I/3. A day-
school at Shrewsbury kept by Rev. G. Case, minister of the Unitarian
Chapel ("Life and Letters," Volume I., page 27 et seq.)) I remember how
very much I was afraid of meeting the dogs in Barker Street, and how at
school I could not get up my courage to fight. I was very timid by nature. I
remember I took great delight at school in fishing for newts in the quarry
pool. I had thus young formed a strong taste for collecting, chiefly seals,
franks, etc., but also pebbles and minerals—one which was given me by
some boy decided this taste. I believe shortly after this, or before, I had
smattered in botany, and certainly when at Mr. Case's School I was very
fond of gardening, and invented some great falsehoods about being able to
colour crocuses as I liked. (Chapter I./4. The story is given in the "Life and
Letters," I., page 28, the details being slightly different.) At this time I felt
very strong friendship for some boys. It was soon after I began collecting
stones, i.e., when 9 or 10, that I distinctly recollect the desire I had of being
able to know something about every pebble in front of the hall door—it was
my earliest and only geological aspiration at that time. I was in those days a
very great story-teller—for the pure pleasure of exciting attention and
surprise. I stole fruit and hid it for these same motives, and injured trees by
barking them for similar ends. I scarcely ever went out walking without
saying I had seen a pheasant or some strange bird (natural history taste);
these lies, when not detected, I presume, excited my attention, as I recollect
them vividly, not connected with shame, though some I do, but as
something which by having produced a great effect on my mind, gave
pleasure like a tragedy. I recollect when I was at Mr. Case's inventing a
whole fabric to show how fond I was of speaking the TRUTH! My
invention is still so vivid in my mind, that I could almost fancy it was true,
did not memory of former shame tell me it was false. I have no particularly
happy or unhappy recollections of this time or earlier periods of my life. I
remember well a walk I took with a boy named Ford across some fields to a

farmhouse on the Church Stretton road. I do not remember any mental
pursuits excepting those of collecting stones, etc., gardening, and about this
time often going with my father in his carriage, telling him of my lessons,
and seeing game and other wild birds, which was a great delight to me. I
was born a naturalist.
When I was 9 1/2 years old (July 1818) I went with Erasmus to see
Liverpool: it has left no impressions on my mind, except most trifling ones
—fear of the coach upsetting, a good dinner, and an extremely vague
memory of ships.
In Midsummer of this year I went to Dr. Butler's School. (Chapter I./5.
Darwin entered Dr. Butler's school in Shrewsbury in the summer of 1818,
and remained there till 1825 ("Life and Letters," I., page 30).) I well
recollect the first going there, which oddly enough I cannot of going to Mr.
Case's, the first school of all. I remember the year 1818 well, not from
having first gone to a public school, but from writing those figures in my
school book, accompanied with obscure thoughts, now fulfilled, whether I
should recollect in future life that year.
In September (1818) I was ill with the scarlet fever. I well remember the
wretched feeling of being delirious.
1819, July (10 1/2 years old).
Went to the sea at Plas Edwards and stayed there three weeks, which now
appears to me like three months. (Chapter I./6. Plas Edwards, at Towyn, on
the Welsh coast.) I remember a certain shady green road (where I saw a
snake) and a waterfall, with a degree of pleasure, which must be connected
with the pleasure from scenery, though not directly recognised as such. The
sandy plain before the house has left a strong impression, which is
obscurely connected with an indistinct remembrance of curious insects,
probably a Cimex mottled with red, and Zygaena, the burnet-moth. I was at
that time very passionate (when I swore like a trooper) and quarrelsome.
The former passion has I think nearly wholly but slowly died away. When
journeying there by stage coach I remember a recruiting officer (I think I
should know his face to this day) at tea time, asking the maid-servant for
toasted bread and butter. I was convulsed with laughter and thought it the
quaintest and wittiest speech that ever passed from the mouth of man. Such
is wit at 10 1/2 years old. The memory now flashes across me of the
pleasure I had in the evening on a blowy day walking along the beach by

myself and seeing the gulls and cormorants wending their way home in a
wild and irregular course. Such poetic pleasures, felt so keenly in after
years, I should not have expected so early in life.
1820, July.
Went a riding tour (on old Dobbin) with Erasmus to Pistyll Rhiadr
(Chapter I./7. Pistyll Rhiadr proceeds from Llyn Pen Rhiadr down the
Llyfnant to the Dovey.); of this I recollect little, an indistinct picture of the
fall, but I well remember my astonishment on hearing that fishes could
jump up it.
(Chapter I./8. The autobiographical fragment here comes to an end. The
next letters give some account of Darwin as an Edinburgh student. He has
described ("Life and Letters," I., pages 35-45) his failure to be interested in
the official teaching of the University, his horror at the operating theatre,
and his gradually increasing dislike of medical study, which finally
determined his leaving Edinburgh, and entering Cambridge with a view to
taking Orders.)
LETTER 1. TO R.W. DARWIN. Sunday Morning {Edinburgh, October,
1825}.
My dear Father
As I suppose Erasmus (Erasmus Darwin) has given all the particulars of
the journey, I will say no more about it, except that altogether it has cost me
7 pounds. We got into our lodgings yesterday evening, which are very
comfortable and near the College. Our Landlady, by name Mrs. Mackay, is
a nice clean old body—exceedingly civil and attentive. She lives in "11,
Lothian Street, Edinburgh" (1/1. In a letter printed in the "Edinburgh
Evening Despatch" of May 22nd, 1888, the writer suggested that a tablet
should be placed on the house, 11, Lothian Street. This suggestion was
carried out in 1888 by Mr. Ralph Richardson (Clerk of the Commissary
Court, Edinburgh), who obtained permission from the proprietors to affix a
tablet to the house, setting forth that Charles Darwin resided there as an
Edinburgh University student. We are indebted to Mr. W.K. Dickson for
obtaining for us this information, and to Mr. Ralph Richardson for kindly
supplying us with particulars. See Mr. Richardson's Inaugural Address,
"Trans. Edinb. Geol. Soc." 1894-95; also "Memorable Edinburgh Houses,"
by Wilmot Harrison, 1898.), and only four flights of steps from the ground-
floor, which is very moderate to some other lodgings that we were nearly

taking. The terms are 1 pound 6 shillings for two very nice and LIGHT
bedrooms and a sitting-room; by the way, light bedrooms are very scarce
articles in Edinburgh, since most of them are little holes in which there is
neither air nor light. We called on Dr. Hanley the first morning, whom I
think we never should have found, had it not been for a good-natured Dr. of
Divinity who took us into his library and showed us a map, and gave us
directions how to find him. Indeed, all the Scotchmen are so civil and
attentive, that it is enough to make an Englishman ashamed of himself. I
should think Dr. Butler or any other fat English Divine would take two utter
strangers into his library and show them the way! When at last we found the
Doctor, and having made all the proper speeches on both sides, we all three
set out and walked all about the town, which we admire excessively; indeed
Bridge Street is the most extraordinary thing I ever saw, and when we first
looked over the sides, we could hardly believe our eyes, when instead of a
fine river, we saw a stream of people. We spend all our mornings in
promenading about the town, which we know pretty well, and in the
evenings we go to the play to hear Miss Stephens (Probably Catherine
Stephens), which is quite delightful; she is very popular here, being encored
to such a degree, that she can hardly get on with the play. On Monday we
are going to Der F (I do not know how to spell the rest of the word). (1/2.
"Der F" is doubtless "Der Freischutz," which appeared in 1820, and of
which a selection was given in London, under Weber's direction, in 1825.
The last of Weber's compositions, "From Chindara's warbling fount," was
written for Miss Stephens, who sang it to his accompaniment "the last time
his fingers touched the key-board." (See "Dict. of Music," "Stephens" and
"Weber.")) Before we got into our lodgings, we were staying at the Star
Hotel in Princes St., where to my surprise I met with an old schoolfellow,
whom I like very much; he is just come back from a walking tour in
Switzerland and is now going to study for his {degree?} The introductory
lectures begin next Wednesday, and we were matriculated for them on
Saturday; we pay 10s., and write our names in a book, and the ceremony is
finished; but the Library is not free to us till we get a ticket from a
Professor. We just have been to Church and heard a sermon of only 20
minutes. I expected, from Sir Walter Scott's account, a soul-cutting
discourse of 2 hours and a half.
I remain your affectionate son, C. DARWIN.
LETTER 2. TO CAROLINE DARWIN. January 6th, 1826. Edinburgh.

Many thanks for your very entertaining letter, which was a great relief
after hearing a long stupid lecture from Duncan on Materia Medica, but as
you know nothing either of the Lectures or Lecturers, I will give you a short
account of them. Dr. Duncan is so very learned that his wisdom has left no
room for his sense, and he lectures, as I have already said, on the Materia
Medica, which cannot be translated into any word expressive enough of its
stupidity. These few last mornings, however, he has shown signs of
improvement, and I hope he will "go on as well as can be expected." His
lectures begin at eight in the morning. Dr. Hope begins at ten o'clock, and I
like both him and his lectures VERY much (after which Erasmus goes to
"Mr. Sizars on Anatomy," who is a charming Lecturer). At 12 the Hospital,
after which I attend Monro on Anatomy. I dislike him and his lectures so
much, that I cannot speak with decency about them. Thrice a week we have
what is called Clinical lectures, which means lectures on the sick people in
the Hospital—these I like very much. I said this account should be short,
but I am afraid it has been too long, like the lectures themselves.
I will be a good boy and tell something about Johnson again (not but
what I am very much surprised that Papa should so forget himself as call
me, a Collegian in the University of Edinburgh, a boy). He has changed his
lodgings for the third time; he has got very cheap ones, but I am afraid it
will not answer, for they must make up by cheating. I hope you like
Erasmus' official news, he means to begin every letter so. You mentioned in
your letter that Emma was staying with you: if she is not gone, ask her to
tell Jos that I have not succeeded in getting any titanium, but that I will try
again...I want to know how old I shall be next birthday—I believe 17, and if
so, I shall be forced to go abroad for one year, since it is necessary that I
shall have completed my 21st year before I take my degree. Now you have
no business to be frowning and puzzling over this letter, for I did not
promise to write a good hand to you.
LETTER 3. TO J.S. HENSLOW.
(3/1. Extracts from Darwin's letters to Henslow were read before the
Cambridge Philosophical Society on November 16th, 1835. Some of the
letters were subsequently printed, in an 8vo pamphlet of 31 pages, dated
December 1st, 1835, for private distribution among the members of the
Society. A German translation by W. Preyer appeared in the "Deutsche
Rundschau," June 1891.)

{15th August, 1832. Monte Video.}
We are now beating up the Rio Plata, and I take the opportunity of
beginning a letter to you. I did not send off the specimens from Rio Janeiro,
as I grudged the time it would take to pack them up. They are now ready to
be sent off and most probably go by this packet. If so they go to Falmouth
(where Fitz-Roy has made arrangements) and so will not trouble your
brother's agent in London. When I left England I was not fully aware how
essential a kindness you offered me when you undertook to receive my
boxes. I do not know what I should do without such head-quarters. And
now for an apologetical prose about my collection: I am afraid you will say
it is very small, but I have not been idle, and you must recollect what a very
small show hundreds of species make. The box contains a good many
geological specimens; I am well aware that the greater number are too
small. But I maintain that no person has a right to accuse me, till he has
tried carrying rocks under a tropical sun. I have endeavoured to get
specimens of every variety of rock, and have written notes upon all. If you
think it worth your while to examine any of them I shall be very glad of
some mineralogical information, especially on any numbers between 1 and
254 which include Santiago rocks. By my catalogue I shall know which you
may refer to. As for my plants, "pudet pigetque mihi." All I can say is that
when objects are present which I can observe and particularise about, I
cannot summon resolution to collect when I know nothing.
It is positively distressing to walk in the glorious forest amidst such
treasures and feel they are all thrown away upon one. My collection from
the Abrolhos is interesting, as I suspect it nearly contains the whole
flowering vegetation—and indeed from extreme sterility the same may
almost be said of Santiago. I have sent home four bottles with animals in
spirits, I have three more, but would not send them till I had a fourth. I shall
be anxious to hear how they fare. I made an enormous collection of
Arachnidae at Rio, also a good many small beetles in pill boxes, but it is not
the best time of year for the latter. Amongst the lower animals nothing has
so much interested me as finding two species of elegantly coloured true
Planaria inhabiting the dewy forest! The false relation they bear to snails is
the most extraordinary thing of the kind I have ever seen. In the same genus
(or more truly family) some of the marine species possess an organisation
so marvellous that I can scarcely credit my eyesight. Every one has heard of
the discoloured streaks of water in the equatorial regions. One I examined

was owing to the presence of such minute Oscillariae that in each square
inch of surface there must have been at least one hundred thousand present.
After this I had better be silent, for you will think me a Baron Munchausen
amongst naturalists. Most assuredly I might collect a far greater number of
specimens of Invertebrate animals if I took less time over each; but I have
come to the conclusion that two animals with their original colour and
shape noted down will be more valuable to naturalists than six with only
dates and place. I hope you will send me your criticisms about my
collection; and it will be my endeavour that nothing you say shall be lost on
me. I would send home my writings with my specimens, only I find I have
so repeatedly occasion to refer back that it would be a serious loss to me. I
cannot conclude about my collection without adding that I implicitly trust in
your keeping an exact account against all the expense of boxes, etc., etc. At
this present minute we are at anchor in the mouth of the river, and such a
strange scene as it is. Everything is in flames—the sky with lightning, the
water with luminous particles, and even the very masts are pointed with a
blue flame. I expect great interest in scouring over the plains of Monte
Video, yet I look back with regret to the Tropics, that magic lure to all
naturalists. The delight of sitting on a decaying trunk amidst the quiet
gloom of the forest is unspeakable and never to be forgotten. How often
have I then wished for you. When I see a banana I well recollect admiring
them with you in Cambridge—little did I then think how soon I should eat
their fruit.
August 15th. In a few days the box will go by the "Emulous" packet
(Capt. Cooke) to Falmouth and will be forwarded to you. This letter goes
the same way, so that if in course of due time you do not receive the box,
will you be kind enough to write to Falmouth? We have been here (Monte
Video) for some time; but owing to bad weather and continual fighting on
shore, we have scarcely ever been able to walk in the country. I have
collected during the last month nothing, but to-day I have been out and
returned like Noah's Ark with animals of all sorts. I have to-day to my
astonishment found two Planariae living under dry stones: ask L. Jenyns if
he has ever heard of this fact. I also found a most curious snail, and spiders,
beetles, snakes, scorpions ad libitum, and to conclude shot a Cavia
weighing a cwt.—On Friday we sail for the Rio Negro, and then will
commence our real wild work. I look forward with dread to the wet stormy

regions of the south, but after so much pleasure I must put up with some
sea-sickness and misery.
LETTER 4. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Monte Video, 24th November 1832.
We arrived here on the 24th of October, after our first cruise on the coast
of Patagonia. North of the Rio Negro we fell in with some little schooners
employed in sealing: to save the loss of time in surveying the intricate mass
of banks, Capt. Fitz-Roy has hired two of them and has put officers on
them. It took us nearly a month fitting them out; as soon as this was
finished we came back here, and are now preparing for a long cruise to the
south. I expect to find the wild mountainous country of Terra del Fuego
very interesting, and after the coast of Patagonia I shall thoroughly enjoy it.
—I had hoped for the credit of Dame Nature, no such country as this last
existed; in sad reality we coasted along 240 miles of sand hillocks; I never
knew before, what a horrid ugly object a sand hillock is. The famed country
of the Rio Plata in my opinion is not much better: an enormous brackish
river, bounded by an interminable green plain is enough to make any
naturalist groan. So Hurrah for Cape Horn and the Land of Storms. Now
that I have had my growl out, which is a privilege sailors take on all
occasions, I will turn the tables and give an account of my doing in Nat.
History. I must have one more growl: by ill luck the French Government
has sent one of its collectors to the Rio Negro, where he has been working
for the last six months, and is now gone round the Horn. So that I am very
selfishly afraid he will get the cream of all the good things before me. As I
have nobody to talk to about my luck and ill luck in collecting, I am
determined to vent it all upon you. I have been very lucky with fossil bones;
I have fragments of at least 6 distinct animals: as many of them are teeth, I
trust, shattered and rolled as they have been, they will be recognised. I have
paid all the attention I am capable of to their geological site; but of course it
is too long a story for here. 1st, I have the tarsi and metatarsi very perfect of
a Cavia; 2nd, the upper jaw and head of some very large animal with four
square hollow molars and the head greatly protruded in front. I at first
thought it belonged either to the Megalonyx or Megatherium (4/1). The
animal may probably have been Grypotherium Darwini, Ow. The osseous
plates mentioned below must have belonged to one of the Glyptodontidae,
and not to Megatherium. We are indebted to Mr. Kerr for calling our
attention to a passage in Buckland's "Bridgewater Treatise" (Volume II.,
page 20, note), where bony armour is ascribed to Megatherium.); in

confirmation of this in the same formation I found a large surface of the
osseous polygonal plates, which "late observations" (what are they?) show
belong to the Megatherium. Immediately I saw this I thought they must
belong to an enormous armadillo, living species of which genus are so
abundant here. 3rd, The lower jaw of some large animal which, from the
molar teeth, I should think belonged to the Edentata; 4th, some large molar
teeth which in some respects would seem to belong to an enormous rodent;
5th, also some smaller teeth belonging to the same order. If it interests you
sufficiently to unpack them, I shall be very curious to hear something about
them. Care must be taken in this case not to confuse the tallies. They are
mingled with marine shells which appear to me identical with what now
exist. But since they were deposited in their beds several geological
changes have taken place in the country. So much for the dead, and now for
the living: there is a poor specimen of a bird which to my unornithological
eyes appears to be a happy mixture of a lark, pigeon and snipe (No. 710).
Mr. MacLeay himself never imagined such an inosculating creature: I
suppose it will turn out to be some well-known bird, although it has quite
baffled me. I have taken some interesting Amphibia; a new Trigonocephalus
beautifully connecting in its habits Crotalus and the Viperidae, and plenty of
new (as far as my knowledge goes) saurians. As for one little toad, I hope it
may be new, that it may be christened "diabolicus." Milton must allude to
this very individual when he talks of "squat like a toad" (4/2. "...him
{Satan} there they {Ithuriel and Zephon} found, Squat like a toad, close at
the ear of Eve" ("Paradise Lost," Book IV., line 800).
"Formerly Milton's "Paradise Lost" had been my chief favourite, and in
my excursions during the voyage of the 'Beagle,' when I could take only a
single volume, I always chose Milton" ("Autobiography," page 69).); its
colours are by Werner (4/3. Werner's "Nomenclature of Colours,"
Edinburgh, 1821.) ink black, vermilion red and buff orange. It has been a
splendid cruise for me in Nat. History. Amongst the Pelagic Crustacea,
some new and curious genera. In the Zoophytes some interesting animals.
As for one Flustra, if I had not the specimen to back me up nobody would
believe in its most anomalous structure. But as for novelty all this is nothing
to a family of pelagic animals which at first sight appear like Medusae but
are really highly organised. I have examined them repeatedly, and certainly
from their structure it would be impossible to place them in any existing
order. Perhaps Salpa is the nearest animal, although the transparency of the

body is nearly the only character they have in common. I think the dried
plants nearly contain all which were then (Bahia Blanca) flowering. All the
specimens will be packed in casks. I think there will be three (before
sending this letter I will specify dates, etc., etc.). I am afraid you will groan
or rather the floor of the lecture room will when the casks arrive. Without
you I should be utterly undone. The small cask contains fish: will you open
it to see how the spirit has stood the evaporation of the Tropics. On board
the ship everything goes on as well as possible; the only drawback is the
fearful length of time between this and the day of our return. I do not see
any limits to it. One year is nearly completed and the second will be so,
before we even leave the east coast of S. America. And then our voyage
may be said really to have commenced. I know not how I shall be able to
endure it. The frequency with which I think of all the happy hours I have
spent at Shrewsbury and Cambridge is rather ominous—I trust everything
to time and fate and will feel my way as I go on.
November 24th.—We have been at Buenos Ayres for a week; it is a fine
large city, but such a country, everything is mud, you can go nowhere, you
can do nothing for mud. In the city I obtained much information about the
banks of the Uruguay—I hear of limestone with shells, and beds of shells in
every direction. I hope when we winter in the Plata to have a most
interesting geological excursion into that country: I purchased fragments
(Nos. 837-8) of some enormous bones, which I was assured belonged to the
former giants!! I also procured some seeds—I do not know whether they
are worth your accepting; if you think so I will get some more. They are in
the box. I have sent to you by the "Duke of York" packet, commanded by
Lieut. Snell, to Falmouth two large casks containing fossil bones, a small
cask with fish and a box containing skins, spirit bottle, etc., and pill-boxes
with beetles. Would you be kind enough to open these latter as they are apt
to become mouldy. With the exception of the bones the rest of my collection
looks very scanty. Recollect how great a proportion of time is spent at sea. I
am always anxious to hear in what state the things come and any criticisms
about quantity or kind of specimens. In the smaller cask is part of a large
head, the anterior portions of which are in the other large one. The packet
has arrived and I am in a great bustle. You will not hear from me for some
months.
LETTER 5. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Valparaiso, July 24th 1834.

A box has just arrived in which were two of your most kind and
affectionate letters. You do not know how happy they have made me. One is
dated December 15th, 1833, the other January 15th of the same year! By
what fatality it did not arrive sooner I cannot conjecture; I regret it much,
for it contains the information I most wanted, about manner of packing,
etc., etc.: roots with specimens of plants, etc., etc. This I suppose was
written after the reception of my first cargo of specimens. Not having heard
from you until March of this year I really began to think that my collections
were so poor, that you were puzzled what to say; the case is now quite on
the opposite tack; for you are guilty of exciting all my vain feelings to a
most comfortable pitch; if hard work will atone for these thoughts, I vow it
shall not be spared. It is rather late, but I will allude to some remarks in the
January letter; you advise me to send home duplicates of my notes; I have
been aware of the advantage of doing so; but then at sea to this day, I am
invariably sick, excepting on the finest days, at which times with pelagic
animals around me, I could never bring myself to the task—on shore the
most prudent person could hardly expect such a sacrifice of time. My notes
are becoming bulky. I have about 600 small quarto pages full; about half of
this is Geology—the other imperfect descriptions of animals; with the latter
I make it a rule only to describe those parts or facts, which cannot be seen
in specimens in spirits. I keep my private Journal distinct from the above.
(N.B. this letter is a most untidy one, but my mind is untidy with joy; it is
your fault, so you must take the consequences.) With respect to the land
Planariae, unquestionably they are not molluscous animals. I read your
letters last night, this morning I took a little walk; by a curious coincidence,
I found a new white species of Planaria, and a new to me Vaginulus (third
species which I have found in S. America) of Cuvier. Amongst the marine
mollusques I have seen a good many genera, and at Rio found one quite
new one. With respect to the December letter, I am very glad to hear the
four casks arrived safe; since which time you have received another cargo,
with the bird skins about which you did not understand me. Have any of the
B. Ayrean seeds produced plants? From the Falklands I acknowledged a box
and letter from you; with the letter were a few seeds from Patagonia. At
present I have specimens enough to make a heavy cargo, but shall wait as
much longer as possible, because opportunities are not now so good as
before. I have just got scent of some fossil bones of a MAMMOTH; what
they may be I do not know, but if gold or galloping will get them they shall

be mine. You tell me you like hearing how I am going on and what doing,
and you well may imagine how much I enjoy speaking to any one upon
subjects which I am always thinking about, but never have any one to talk
to {about}. After leaving the Falklands we proceeded to the Rio S. Cruz,
following up the river till within twenty miles of the Cordilleras.
Unfortunately want of provisions compelled us to return. This expedition
was most important to me as it was a transverse section of the great
Patagonian formation. I conjecture (an accurate examination of fossils may
possibly determine the point) that the main bed is somewhere about the
Miocene period (using Mr. Lyell's expression); I judge from what I have
seen of the present shells of Patagonia. This bed contains an ENORMOUS
field of lava. This is of some interest, as being a rude approximation to the
age of the volcanic part of the great range of the Andes. Long before this it
existed as a slate and porphyritic line of hills. I have collected a tolerable
quantity of information respecting the period and forms of elevations of
these plains. I think these will be interesting to Mr. Lyell; I had deferred
reading his third volume till my return: you may guess how much pleasure
it gave me; some of his woodcuts came so exactly into play that I have only
to refer to them instead of redrawing similar ones. I had my barometer with
me, I only wish I had used it more in these plains. The valley of S. Cruz
appears to me a very curious one; at first it quite baffled me. I believe I can
show good reasons for supposing it to have been once a northern straits like
to that of Magellan. When I return to England you will have some hard
work in winnowing my Geology; what little I know I have learnt in such a
curious fashion that I often feel very doubtful about the number of grains
{of value?}. Whatever number they may turn out, I have enjoyed extreme
pleasure in collecting them. In T. del Fuego I collected and examined some
corallines; I have observed one fact which quite startled me: it is that in the
genus Sertularia (taken in its most restricted form as {used} by Lamoureux)
and in two species which, excluding comparative expressions, I should find
much difficulty in describing as different, the polypi quite and essentially
differed in all their most important and evident parts of structure. I have
already seen enough to be convinced that the present families of corallines
as arranged by Lamarck, Cuvier, etc., are highly artificial. It appears that
they are in the same state {in} which shells were when Linnaeus left them
for Cuvier to rearrange. I do so wish I was a better hand at dissecting, I find
I can do very little in the minute parts of structure; I am forced to take a

very rough examination as a type for different classes of structure. It is most
extraordinary I can nowhere see in my books one single description of the
polypus of any one coralline excepting Alcyonium Lobularia of Savigny. I
found a curious little stony Cellaria (5/1. Cellaria, a genus of Bryozoa,
placed in the section Flustrina of the Suborder Chilostomata.) (a new genus)
each cell provided with long toothed bristle, these are capable of various
and rapid motions. This motion is often simultaneous, and can be produced
by irritation. This fact, as far as I can see, is quite isolated in the history of
zoophytes (excepting the Flustra with an organ like a vulture's head); it
points out a much more intimate relation between the polypi than Lamarck
is willing to allow. I forgot whether I mentioned having seen something of
the manner of propagation in that most ambiguous family, the corallines; I
feel pretty well convinced if they are not plants they are not zoophytes. The
"gemmule" of a Halimeda contained several articulations united, ready to
burst their envelope, and become attached to some basis. I believe in
zoophytes universally the gemmule produces a single polypus, which
afterwards or at the same time grows with its cell or single articulation.
The "Beagle" left the Sts. of Magellan in the middle of winter; she found
her road out by a wild unfrequented channel; well might Sir J. Narborough
call the west coast South Desolation, "because it is so desolate a land to
behold." We were driven into Chiloe by some very bad weather. An
Englishman gave me three specimens of that very fine Lucanoidal insect
which is described in the "Camb. Phil. Trans." (5/2. "Description of
Chiasognathus Grantii, a new Lucanideous Insect, etc." by J.F. Stephens
("Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc." Volume IV., page 209, 1833.)), two males and
one female. I find Chiloe is composed of lava and recent deposits. The lavas
are curious from abounding in, or rather being in parts composed of
pitchstone. If we go to Chiloe in the summer, I shall reap an entomological
harvest. I suppose the Botany both there and in Chili is well-known.
I forgot to state that in the four cargoes of specimens there have been sent
three square boxes, each containing four glass bottles. I mention this in case
they should be stowed beneath geological specimens and thus escape your
notice, perhaps some spirit may be wanted in them. If a box arrives from B.
Ayres with a Megatherium head the other unnumbered specimens, be kind
enough to tell me, as I have strong fears for its safety. We arrived here the
day before yesterday; the views of the distant mountains are most sublime
and the climate delightful; after our long cruise in the damp gloomy

climates of the south, to breathe a clear dry air and feel honest warm
sunshine, and eat good fresh roast beef must be the summum bonum of
human life. I do not like the look of the rocks half so much as the beef,
there is too much of those rather insipid ingredients, mica, quartz and
feldspar. Our plans are at present undecided; there is a good deal of work to
the south of Valparaiso and to the north an indefinite quantity. I look
forward to every part with interest. I have sent you in this letter a sad dose
of egotism, but recollect I look up to you as my father in Natural History,
and a son may talk about himself to his father. In your paternal capacity as
proproctor what a great deal of trouble you appear to have had. How
turbulent Cambridge is become. Before this time it will have regained its
tranquillity. I have a most schoolboy-like wish to be there, enjoying my
holidays. It is a most comfortable reflection to me, that a ship being made
of wood and iron, cannot last for ever, and therefore this voyage must have
an end.
October 28th. This letter has been lying in my portfolio ever since July; I
did not send it away because I did not think it worth the postage; it shall
now go with a box of specimens. Shortly after arriving here I set out on a
geological excursion, and had a very pleasant ramble about the base of the
Andes. The whole country appears composed of breccias (and I imagine
slates) which universally have been modified and oftentimes completely
altered by the action of fire. The varieties of porphyry thus produced are
endless, but nowhere have I yet met with rocks which have flowed in a
stream; dykes of greenstone are very numerous. Modern volcanic action is
entirely shut up in the very central parts (which cannot now be reached on
account of the snow) of the Cordilleras. In the south of the R. Maypu I
examined the Tertiary plains, already partially described by M. Gay. (5/3.
"Rapport fait a l'Academie Royale des Sciences, sur les Travaux
Geologiques de M. Gay," by Alex. Brongniart ("Ann. Sci. Nat." Volume
XXVIII., page 394, 1833.) The fossil shells appear to me to be far more
different from the recent ones than in the great Patagonian formation; it will
be curious if an Eocene and Miocene (recent there is abundance of) could
be proved to exist in S. America as well as in Europe. I have been much
interested by finding abundance of recent shells at an elevation of 1,300
feet; the country in many places is scattered over with shells but these are
all littoral ones. So that I suppose the 1,300 feet elevation must be owing to
a succession of small elevations such as in 1822. With these certain proofs

of the recent residence of the ocean over all the lower parts of Chili, the
outline of every view and the form of each valley possesses a high interest.
Has the action of running water or the sea formed this deep ravine? was a
question which often arose in my mind and generally was answered by
finding a bed of recent shells at the bottom. I have not sufficient arguments,
but I do not believe that more than a small fraction of the height of the
Andes has been formed within the Tertiary period. The conclusion of my
excursion was very unfortunate, I became unwell and could hardly reach
this place. I have been in bed for the last month, but am now rapidly getting
well. I had hoped during this time to have made a good collection of insects
but it has been impossible: I regret the less because Chiloe fairly swarms
with collectors; there are more naturalists in the country, than carpenters or
shoemakers or any other honest trade.
In my letter from the Falkland Islands I said I had fears about a box with
a Megatherium. I have since heard from B. Ayres that it went to Liverpool
by the brig "Basingwaithe." If you have not received it, it is I think worth
taking some trouble about. In October two casks and a jar were sent by
H.M.S. "Samarang" via Portsmouth. I have no doubt you have received
them. With this letter I send a good many bird skins; in the same box with
them, there is a paper parcel containing pill boxes with insects. The other
pill boxes require no particular care. You will see in two of these boxes
some dried Planariae (terrestrial), the only method I have found of
preserving them (they are exceedingly brittle). By examining the white
species I understand some little of the internal structure. There are two
small parcels of seeds. There are some plants which I hope may interest
you, or at least those from Patagonia where I collected every one in flower.
There is a bottle clumsily but I think securely corked containing water and
gas from the hot baths of Cauquenes seated at foot of Andes and long
celebrated for medicinal properties. I took pains in filling and securing both
water and gas. If you can find any one who likes to analyze them, I should
think it would be worth the trouble. I have not time at present to copy my
few observations about the locality, etc., etc., {of} these springs. Will you
tell me how the Arachnidae which I have sent home, for instance those from
Rio, appear to be preserved. I have doubts whether it is worth while
collecting them.
We sail the day after to-morrow: our plans are at last limited and definite;
I am delighted to say we have bid an eternal adieu to T. del Fuego. The

"Beagle" will not proceed further south than C. Tres Montes; from which
point we survey to the north. The Chonos Archipelago is delightfully
unknown: fine deep inlets running into the Cordilleras—where we can steer
by the light of a volcano. I do not know which part of the voyage now
offers the most attractions. This is a shamefully untidy letter, but you must
forgive me.
LETTER 6. TO J.S. HENSLOW. April 18th, 1835. Valparaiso.
I have just returned from Mendoza, having crossed the Cordilleras by
two passes. This trip has added much to my knowledge of the geology of
the country. Some of the facts, of the truth of which I in my own mind feel
fully convinced, will appear to you quite absurd and incredible. I will give a
very short sketch of the structure of these huge mountains. In the Portillo
pass (the more southern one) travellers have described the Cordilleras to
consist of a double chain of nearly equal altitude separated by a
considerable interval. This is the case; and the same structure extends to the
northward to Uspallata; the little elevation of the eastern line (here not more
than 6,000-7,000 feet.) has caused it almost to be overlooked. To begin with
the western and principal chain, we have, where the sections are best seen,
an enormous mass of a porphyritic conglomerate resting on granite. This
latter rock seems to form the nucleus of the whole mass, and is seen in the
deep lateral valleys, injected amongst, upheaving, overturning in the most
extraordinary manner, the overlying strata. The stratification in all the
mountains is beautifully distinct and from a variety in the colour can be
seen at great distances. I cannot imagine any part of the world presenting a
more extraordinary scene of the breaking up of the crust of the globe than
the very central parts of the Andes. The upheaval has taken place by a great
number of (nearly) N. and S. lines; which in most cases have formed as
many anticlinal and synclinal ravines; the strata in the highest pinnacles are
almost universally inclined at an angle from 70 deg to 80 deg. I cannot tell
you how I enjoyed some of these views—it is worth coming from England,
once to feel such intense delight; at an elevation from 10 to 12,000 feet
there is a transparency in the air, and a confusion of distances and a sort of
stillness which gives the sensation of being in another world, and when to
this is joined the picture so plainly drawn of the great epochs of violence, it
causes in the mind a most strange assemblage of ideas.

The formation I call Porphyritic Conglomerates is the most important and
most developed one in Chili: from a great number of sections I find it a true
coarse conglomerate or breccia, which by every step in a slow gradation
passes into a fine claystone-porphyry; the pebbles and cement becoming
porphyritic till at last all is blended in one compact rock. The porphyries are
excessively abundant in this chain. I feel sure at least 4/5ths of them have
been thus produced from sedimentary beds in situ. There are porphyries
which have been injected from below amongst strata, and others ejected,
which have flowed in streams; it is remarkable, and I could show specimens
of this rock produced in these three methods, which cannot be
distinguished. It is a great mistake considering the Cordilleras here as
composed of rocks which have flowed in streams. In this range I nowhere
saw a fragment, which I believe to have thus originated, although the road
passes at no great distance from the active volcanoes. The porphyries,
conglomerate, sandstone and quartzose sandstone and limestones alternate
and pass into each other many times, overlying (where not broken through
by the granite) clay-slate. In the upper parts, the sandstone begins to
alternate with gypsum, till at last we have this substance of a stupendous
thickness. I really think the formation is in some places (it varies much)
nearly 2,000 feet thick, it occurs often with a green (epidote?) siliceous
sandstone and snow-white marble; it resembles that found in the Alps in
containing large concretions of a crystalline marble of a blackish grey
colour. The upper beds which form some of the higher pinnacles consist of
layers of snow-white gypsum and red compact sandstone, from the
thickness of paper to a few feet, alternating in an endless round. The rock
has a most curiously painted appearance. At the pass of the Peuquenes in
this formation, where however a black rock like clay-slate, without many
laminae, occurring with a pale limestone, has replaced the red sandstone, I
found abundant impressions of shells. The elevation must be between 12
and 13,000 feet. A shell which I believe is the Gryphaea is the most
abundant—an Ostrea, Turratella, Ammonites, small bivalves, Terebratulae
(?). Perhaps some good conchologist (6/1. Some of these genera are
mentioned by Darwin ("Geol. Obs." page 181) as having been named for
him by M. D'Orbigny.) will be able to give a guess, to what grand division
of the formations of Europe these organic remains bear most resemblance.
They are exceedingly imperfect and few. It was late in the season and the
situation particularly dangerous for snow-storms. I did not dare to delay,

otherwise a grand harvest might have been reaped. So much for the western
line; in the Portillo pass, proceeding eastward, we meet an immense mass of
conglomerate, dipping to the west 45 deg, which rest on micaceous
sandstone, etc., etc., upheaved and converted into quartz-rock penetrated by
dykes from the very grand mass of protogine (large crystals of quartz, red
feldspar, and occasional little chlorite). Now this conglomerate which
reposes on and dips from the protogene 45 deg consists of the peculiar
rocks of the first described chain, pebbles of the black rock with shells,
green sandstone, etc., etc. It is hence manifest that the upheaval (and
deposition at least of part) of the grand eastern chain is entirely posterior to
the western. To the north in the Uspallata pass, we have also a fact of the
same class. Bear this in mind: it will help to make you believe what
follows. I have said the Uspallata range is geologically, although only
6,000-7,000 feet, a continuation of the grand eastern chain. It has its
nucleus of granite, consists of grand beds of various crystalline rocks,
which I can feel no doubt are subaqueous lavas alternating with sandstone,
conglomerates and white aluminous beds (like decomposed feldspar) with
many other curious varieties of sedimentary deposits. These lavas and
sandstones alterate very many times, and are quite conformable one to the
other. During two days of careful examination I said to myself at least fifty
times, how exactly like (only rather harder) these beds are to those of the
upper Tertiary strata of Patagonia, Chiloe and Concepcion, without the
possible identity ever having occurred to me. At last there was no resisting
the conclusion. I could not expect shells, for they never occur in this
formation; but lignite or carbonaceous shale ought to be found. I had
previously been exceedingly puzzled by meeting in the sandstone, thin
layers (few inches to feet thick) of a brecciated pitchstone. I strongly
suspect the underlying granite has altered such beds into this pitchstone.
The silicified wood (particularly characteristic) was yet absent. The
conviction that I was on the Tertiary strata was so strong by this time in my
mind, that on the third day in the midst of lavas and {? masses} of granite I
began my apparently forlorn hunt. How do you think I succeeded? In an
escarpement of compact greenish sandstone, I found a small wood of
petrified trees in a vertical position, or rather the strata were inclined about
20-30 deg to one point and the trees 70 deg to the opposite one. That is,
they were before the tilt truly vertical. The sandstone consists of many
layers, and is marked by the concentric lines of the bark (I have specimens);

11 are perfectly silicified and resemble the dicotyledonous wood which I
have found at Chiloe and Concepcion (6/2. "Geol. Obs." page 202.
Specimens of the silicified wood were examined by Robert Brown, and
determined by him as coniferous, "partaking of the characters of the
Araucarian tribe, with some curious points of affinity with the yew."); the
others (30-40) I only know to be trees from the analogy of form and
position; they consist of snow-white columns (like Lot's wife) of coarsely
crystalline carb. of lime. The largest shaft is 7 feet. They are all close
together, within 100 yards, and about the same level: nowhere else could I
find any. It cannot be doubted that the layers of fine sandstone have quietly
been deposited between a clump of trees which were fixed by their roots.
The sandstone rests on lava, is covered by a great bed apparently about
1,000 feet thick of black augitic lava, and over this there are at least 5 grand
alternations of such rocks and aqueous sedimentary deposits, amounting in
thickness to several thousand feet. I am quite afraid of the only conclusion
which I can draw from this fact, namely that there must have been a
depression in the surface of the land to that amount. But neglecting this
consideration, it was a most satisfactory support of my presumption of the
Tertiary (I mean by Tertiary, that the shells of the period were closely allied,
or some identical, to those which now live, as in the lower beds of
Patagonia) age of this eastern chain. A great part of the proof must remain
upon my ipse dixit of a mineralogical resemblance with those beds whose
age is known, and the character of which resemblance is to be subject to
infinite variation, passing from one variety to another by a concretionary
structure. I hardly expect you to believe me, when it is a consequence of
this view that granite, which forms peaks of a height probably of 14,000
feet, has been fluid in the Tertiary period; that strata of that period are
altered by its heat, and are traversed by dykes from the mass. That these
strata have also probably undergone an immense depression, that they are
now inclined at high angles and form regular or complicated anticlinal
lines. To complete the climax and seal your disbelief, these same
sedimentary strata and lavas are traversed by VERY NUMEROUS, true
metallic veins of iron, copper, arsenic, silver and gold, and these can be
traced to the underlying granite. A gold mine has been worked close to the
clump of silicified trees. If when you see my specimens, sections and
account, you should think that there is pretty strong presumptive evidence
of the above facts, it appears very important; for the structure, and size of

this chain will bear comparison with any in the world, and that this all
should have been produced in so very recent a period is indeed wonderful.
In my own mind I am quite convinced of the reality of this. I can anyhow
most conscientiously say that no previously formed conjecture warped my
judgment. As I have described so did I actually observe the facts. But I will
have some mercy and end this most lengthy account of my geological trip.
On some of the large patches of perpetual snow, I found the famous red
snow of the Arctic countries; I send with this letter my observations and a
piece of paper on which I tried to dry some specimens. If the fact is new
and you think it worth while, either yourself examine them or send them to
whoever has described the specimens from the north and publish a notice in
any of the periodicals. I also send a small bottle with two lizards, one of
them is viviparous as you will see by the accompanying notice. A M. Gay—
a French naturalist—has already published in one of the newspapers of this
country a similar statement and probably has forwarded to Paris some
account; as the fact appears singular would it not be worth while to hand
over the specimens to some good lizardologist and comparative anatomist
to publish an account of their internal structure? Do what you think fit.
This letter will go with a cargo of specimens from Coquimbo. I shall
write to let you know when they are sent off. In the box there are two bags
of seeds, one {from the} valleys of the Cordilleras 5,000-10,000 feet high,
the soil and climate exceedingly dry, soil very light and stony, extremes in
temperature; the other chiefly from the dry sandy Traversia of Mendoza
3,000 feet more or less. If some of the bushes should grow but not be
healthy, try a slight sprinkling of salt and saltpetre. The plain is saliferous.
All the flowers in the Cordilleras appear to be autumnal flowerers—they
were all in blow and seed, many of them very pretty. I gathered them as I
rode along on the hill sides. If they will but choose to come up, I have no
doubt many would be great rarities. In the Mendoza bag there are the seeds
or berries of what appears to be a small potato plant with a whitish flower.
They grow many leagues from where any habitation could ever have
existed owing to absence of water. Amongst the Chonos dried plants, you
will see a fine specimen of the wild potato, growing under a most opposite
climate, and unquestionably a true wild potato. It must be a distinct species
from that of the Lower Cordilleras one. Perhaps as with the banana, distinct
species are now not to be distinguished in their varieties produced by
cultivation. I cannot copy out the few remarks about the Chonos potato.

With the specimens there is a bundle of old papers and notebooks. Will you
take care of them; in case I should lose my notes, these might be useful. I
do not send home any insects because they must be troublesome to you, and
now so little more of the voyage remains unfinished I can well take charge
of them. In two or three days I set out for Coquimbo by land; the "Beagle"
calls for me in the beginning of June. So that I have six weeks more to
enjoy geologising over these curious mountains of Chili. There is at present
a bloody revolution in Peru. The Commodore has gone there, and in the
hurry has carried our letters with him; perhaps amongst them there will be
one from you. I wish I had the old Commodore here, I would shake some
consideration for others into his old body. From Coquimbo you will again
hear from me.
LETTER 7. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Lima, July 12th, 1835.
This is the last letter which I shall ever write to you from the shores of
America, and for this reason I send it. In a few days time the "Beagle" will
sail for the Galapagos Islands. I look forward with joy and interest to this,
both as being somewhat nearer to England and for the sake of having a
good look at an active volcano. Although we have seen lava in abundance, I
have never yet beheld the crater. I sent by H.M.S. "Conway" two large
boxes of specimens. The "Conway" sailed the latter end of June. With them
were letters for you, since that time I have travelled by land from Valparaiso
to Copiapo and seen something more of the Cordilleras. Some of my
geological views have been, subsequently to the last letter, altered. I believe
the upper mass of strata is not so very modern as I supposed. This last
journey has explained to me much of the ancient history of the Cordilleras.
I feel sure they formerly consisted of a chain of volcanoes from which
enormous streams of lava were poured forth at the bottom of the sea. These
alternate with sedimentary beds to a vast thickness; at a subsequent period
these volcanoes must have formed islands, from which have been produced
strata of several thousand feet thick of coarse conglomerate. (7/1. See
"Geological Observations on South America" (London, 1846), Chapter
VII.: "Central Chile; Structure of the Cordillera.") These islands were
covered with fine trees; in the conglomerate, I found one 15 feet in
circumference perfectly silicified to the very centre. The alternations of
compact crystalline rocks (I cannot doubt subaqueous lavas), and
sedimentary beds, now upheaved fractured and indurated, form the main
range of the Andes. The formation was produced at the time when

ammonites, gryphites, oysters, Pecten, Mytilus, etc., etc., lived. In the
central parts of Chili the structure of the lower beds is rendered very
obscure by the metamorphic action which has rendered even the coarsest
conglomerates porphyritic. The Cordilleras of the Andes so worthy of
admiration from the grandeur of their dimensions, rise in dignity when it is
considered that since the period of ammonites, they have formed a marked
feature in the geography of the globe. The geology of these mountains
pleased me in one respect; when reading Lyell, it had always struck me that
if the crust of the world goes on changing in a circle, there ought to be
somewhere found formations which, having the age of the great European
Secondary beds, should possess the structure of Tertiary rocks or those
formed amidst islands and in limited basins. Now the alternations of lava
and coarse sediment which form the upper parts of the Andes, correspond
exactly to what would accumulate under such circumstances. In
consequence of this, I can only very roughly separate into three divisions
the varying strata (perhaps 8,000 feet thick) which compose these
mountains. I am afraid you will tell me to learn my ABC to know quartz
from feldspar before I indulge in such speculations. I lately got hold of a
report on M. Dessalines D'Orbigny's labours in S. America (7/2. "Voyage
dans l'Amerique Meridionale, etc." (A. Dessalines D'Orbigny).); I
experienced rather a debasing degree of vexation to find he has described
the Geology of the Pampas, and that I have had some hard riding for
nothing, it was however gratifying that my conclusions are the same, as far
as I can collect, with his results. It is also capital that the whole of Bolivia
will be described. I hope to be able to connect his geology of that country
with mine of Chili. After leaving Copiapo, we touched at Iquique. I visited
but do not quite understand the position of the nitrate of soda beds. Here in
Peru, from the state of anarchy, I can make no expedition.
I hear from home, that my brother is going to send me a box with books,
and a letter from you. It is very unfortunate that I cannot receive this before
we reach Sydney, even if it ever gets safely so far. I shall not have another
opportunity for many months of again writing to you. Will you have the
charity to send me one more letter (as soon as this reaches you) directed to
the C. of Good Hope. Your letters besides affording me the greatest delight
always give me a fresh stimulus for exertion. Excuse this geological prosy
letter, and farewell till you hear from me at Sydney, and see me in the
autumn of 1836.

LETTER 8. TO JOSIAH WEDGWOOD. {Shrewsbury, October 5th,
1836.}
My dear Uncle
The "Beagle" arrived at Falmouth on Sunday evening, and I reached
home late last night. My head is quite confused with so much delight, but I
cannot allow my sisters to tell you first how happy I am to see all my dear
friends again. I am obliged to return in three or four days to London, where
the "Beagle" will be paid off, and then I shall pay Shrewsbury a longer visit.
I am most anxious once again to see Maer, and all its inhabitants, so that in
the course of two or three weeks, I hope in person to thank you, as being
my first Lord of the Admiralty. (8/1.) Readers of the "Life and Letters" will
remember that it was to Josiah Wedgwood that Darwin owed the great
opportunity of his life ("Life and Letters," Volume I., page 59), and it was
fitting that he should report himself to his "first Lord of the Admiralty." The
present letter clears up a small obscurity to which Mr. Poulton has called
attention ("Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection," "Century"
Series, 1896, page 25). Writing to Fitz-Roy from Shrewsbury on October
6th, Darwin says, "I arrived here yesterday morning at breakfast time." This
refers to his arrival at his father's house, after having slept at the inn. The
date of his arrival in Shrewsbury was, therefore, October 4th, as given in
the "Life and Letters," I., page 272.) The entries in his Diary are:—October
2, 1831. Took leave of my home. October 4, 1836. Reached Shrewsbury
after absence of 5 years and 2 days.) I am so very happy I hardly know what
I am writing. Believe me your most affectionate nephew,
CHAS. DARWIN.
LETTER 9. TO C. LYELL. Shrewsbury, Monday {November 12th,
1838}.
My dear Lyell
I suppose you will be in Hart St. (9/1. Sir Charles Lyell lived at 16, Hart
Street, Bloomsbury.) to-morrow {or} the 14th. I write because I cannot
avoid wishing to be the first person to tell Mrs. Lyell and yourself, that I
have the very good, and shortly since {i.e. until lately} very unexpected
fortune of going to be married! The lady is my cousin Miss Emma
Wedgwood, the sister of Hensleigh Wedgwood, and of the elder brother
who married my sister, so we are connected by manifold ties, besides on my

part, by the most sincere love and hearty gratitude to her for accepting such
a one as myself.
I determined when last at Maer to try my chance, but I hardly expected
such good fortune would turn up for me. I shall be in town in the middle or
latter end of the ensuing week. (9/2. Mr. Darwin was married on January
29th, 1839 (see "Life and Letters," I., page 299). The present letter was
written the day after he had become engaged.) I fear you will say I might
very well have left my story untold till we met. But I deeply feel your
kindness and friendship towards me, which in truth I may say, has been one
chief source of happiness to me, ever since my return to England: so you
must excuse me. I am well sure that Mrs. Lyell, who has sympathy for
every one near her, will give me her hearty congratulations.
Believe me my dear Lyell Yours most truly obliged CHAS. DARWIN.
(PLATE: MRS. DARWIN. Walker and Cockerell, ph. sc.)
LETTER 10. TO EMMA WEDGWOOD. Sunday Night. Athenaeum.
{January 20th, 1839.}
...I cannot tell you how much I enjoyed my Maer visit,—I felt in
anticipation my future tranquil life: how I do hope you may be as happy as I
know I shall be: but it frightens me, as often as I think of what a family you
have been one of. I was thinking this morning how it came, that I, who am
fond of talking and am scarcely ever out of spirits, should so entirely rest
my notions of happiness on quietness, and a good deal of solitude: but I
believe the explanation is very simple and I mention it because it will give
you hopes, that I shall gradually grow less of a brute, it is that during the
five years of my voyage (and indeed I may add these two last) which from
the active manner in which they have been passed, may be said to be the
commencement of my real life, the whole of my pleasure was derived from
what passed in my mind, while admiring views by myself, travelling across
the wild deserts or glorious forests or pacing the deck of the poor little
"Beagle" at night. Excuse this much egotism,—I give it you because I think
you will humanize me, and soon teach me there is greater happiness than
building theories and accumulating facts in silence and solitude. My own
dearest Emma, I earnestly pray, you may never regret the great, and I will
add very good, deed, you are to perform on the Tuesday: my own dear
future wife, God bless you...The Lyells called on me to-day after church; as
Lyell was so full of geology he was obliged to disgorge,—and I dine there

on Tuesday for an especial confidence. I was quite ashamed of myself to-
day, for we talked for half an hour, unsophisticated geology, with poor Mrs.
Lyell sitting by, a monument of patience. I want practice in ill-treatment the
female sex,—I did not observe Lyell had any compunction; I hope to harden
my conscience in time: few husbands seem to find it difficult to effect this.
Since my return I have taken several looks, as you will readily believe, into
the drawing-room; I suppose my taste {for} harmonious colours is already
deteriorated, for I declare the room begins to look less ugly. I take so much
pleasure in the house (10/1. No. 12, Upper Gower Street, is now No. 110,
Gower Street, and forms part of a block inhabited by Messrs. Shoolbred's
employes. We are indebted, for this information, to Mr. Wheatley, of the
Society of Arts.), I declare I am just like a great overgrown child with a new
toy; but then, not like a real child, I long to have a co-partner and possessor.
(10/2. The following passage is taken from the MS. copy of the
"Autobiography;" it was not published in the "Life and Letters" which
appeared in Mrs. Darwin's lifetime:—)
You all know your mother, and what a good mother she has ever been to
all of you. She has been my greatest blessing, and I can declare that in my
whole life I have never heard her utter one word I would rather have been
unsaid. She has never failed in kindest sympathy towards me, and has borne
with the utmost patience my frequent complaints of ill-health and
discomfort. I do not believe she has ever missed an opportunity of doing a
kind action to any one near her. I marvel at my good fortune that she, so
infinitely my superior in every single moral quality, consented to be my
wife. She has been my wise adviser and cheerful comforter throughout life,
which without her would have been during a very long period a miserable
one from ill-health. She has earned the love of every soul near her.
LETTER 11. C. LYELL TO C. DARWIN. {July?, 1841?}.
(11/1. Lyell started on his first visit to the United States in July, 1841, and
was absent thirteen months. Darwin returned to London July 23rd, 1841,
after a prolonged absence; he may, therefore, have missed seeing Lyell.
Assuming the date 1841 to be correct, it would seem that the plan of living
in the country was formed a year before it was actually carried out.)
I have no doubt that your father did rightly in persuading you to stay {at
Shrewsbury}, but we were much disappointed in not seeing you before our
start for a year's absence. I cannot tell you how often since your long illness

I have missed the friendly intercourse which we had so frequently before,
and on which I built more than ever after your marriage. It will not happen
easily that twice in one's life, even in the large world of London, a
congenial soul so occupied with precisely the same pursuits and with an
independence enabling him to pursue them will fall so nearly in my way,
and to have had it snatched from me with the prospect of your residence
somewhat far off is a privation I feel as a very great one. I hope you will
not, like Herschell, get far off from a railway.
LETTER 12. TO CATHERINE DARWIN.
(12/1. The following letter was written to his sister Catherine about two
months before Charles Darwin settled at Down:—)
Sunday {July 1842}.
You must have been surprised at not having heard sooner about the
house. Emma and I only returned yesterday afternoon from sleeping there. I
will give you in detail, as my father would like, MY opinion on it—Emma's
slightly differs. Position:—about 1/4 of a mile from the small village of
Down in Kent—16 miles from St. Paul's—8 1/2 miles from station (with
many trains) which station is only 10 from London. This is bad, as the drive
from {i.e. on account of} the hills is long. I calculate we are two hours
going from London Bridge. Village about forty houses with old walnut trees
in the middle where stands an old flint church and the lanes meet.
Inhabitants very respectable—infant school—grown up people great
musicians—all touch their hats as in Wales and sit at their open doors in the
evening; no high road leads through the village. The little pot-house where
we slept is a grocer's shop, and the landlord is the carpenter—so you may
guess the style of the village. There are butcher and baker and post-office. A
carrier goes weekly to London and calls anywhere for anything in London
and takes anything anywhere. On the road {from London} to the village, on
a fine day the scenery is absolutely beautiful: from close to our house the
view is very distant and rather beautiful, but the house being situated on a
rather high tableland has somewhat of a desolate air. There is a most
beautiful old farm-house, with great thatched barns and old stumps of oak
trees, like that of Skelton, one field off. The charm of the place to me is that
almost every field is intersected (as alas is ours) by one or more foot-paths.
I never saw so many walks in any other county. The country is
extraordinarily rural and quiet with narrow lanes and high hedges and

hardly any ruts. It is really surprising to think London is only 16 miles off.
The house stands very badly, close to a tiny lane and near another man's
field. Our field is 15 acres and flat, looking into flat-bottomed valleys on
both sides, but no view from the drawing-room, which faces due south,
except on our flat field and bits of rather ugly distant horizon. Close in front
there are some old (very productive) cherry trees, walnut trees, yew,
Spanish chestnut, pear, old larch, Scotch fir and silver fir and old mulberry
trees, {which} make rather a pretty group. They give the ground an old
look, but from not flourishing much they also give it rather a desolate look.
There are quinces and medlars and plums with plenty of fruit, and Morello
cherries; but few apples. The purple magnolia flowers against the house.
There is a really fine beech in view in our hedge. The kitchen garden is a
detestable slip and the soil looks wretched from the quantity of chalk flints,
but I really believe it is productive. The hedges grow well all round our
field, and it is a noted piece of hayland. This year the crop was bad, but was
bought, as it stood, for 2 pounds per acre—that is 30 pounds—the purchaser
getting it in. Last year it was sold for 45 pounds—no manure was put on in
the interval. Does not this sound well? Ask my father. Does the mulberry
and magnolia show it is not very cold in winter, which I fear is the case?
Tell Susan it is 9 miles from Knole Park and 6 from Westerham, at which
places I hear the scenery is beautiful. There are many very odd views round
our house—deepish flat-bottomed valley and nice farm-house, but big,
white, ugly, fallow fields;—much wheat grown here. House ugly, looks
neither old nor new—walls two feet thick—windows rather small—lower
story rather low. Capital study 18 x 18. Dining-room 21 x 18. Drawing-
room can easily be added to: is 21 x 15. Three stories, plenty of bedrooms.
We could hold the Hensleighs and you and Susan and Erasmus all together.
House in good repair. Mr. Cresy a few years ago laid out for the owner
1,500 pounds and made a new roof. Water-pipes over house—two bath-
rooms—pretty good offices and good stable-yard, etc., and a cottage. I
believe the price is about 2,200 pounds, and I have no doubt I shall get it for
one year on lease first to try, so that I shall do nothing to the house at first
(last owner kept three cows, one horse, and one donkey, and sold some hay
annually from one field). I have no doubt if we complete the purchase I
shall at least save 1,000 pounds over Westcroft, or any other house we have
seen. Emma was at first a good deal disappointed, and at the country round
the house; the day was gloomy and cold with N.E. wind. She likes the

actual field and house better than I; the house is just situated as she likes for
retirement, not too near or too far from other houses, but she thinks the
country looks desolate. I think all chalk countries do, but I am used to
Cambridgeshire, which is ten times worse. Emma is rapidly coming round.
She was dreadfully bad with toothache and headache in the evening and
Friday, but in coming back yesterday she was so delighted with the scenery
for the first few miles from Down, that it has worked a great change in her.
We go there again the first fine day Emma is able, and we then finally settle
what to do.
(12/2. The following fragmentary "Account of Down" was found among
Mr. Darwin's papers after the publication of the "Life and Letters." It gives
the impression that he intended to write a natural history diary after the
manner of Gilbert White, but there is no evidence that this was actually the
case.)
1843. May 15th.—The first peculiarity which strikes a stranger
unaccustomed to a hilly chalk country is the valleys, with their steep
rounded bottoms—not furrowed with the smallest rivulet. On the road to
Down from Keston a mound has been thrown across a considerable valley,
but even against this mound there is no appearance of even a small pool of
water having collected after the heaviest rains. The water all percolates
straight downwards. Ascertain average depth of wells, inclination of strata,
and springs. Does the water from this country crop out in springs in
Holmsdale or in the valley of the Thames? Examine the fine springs in
Holmsdale.
The valleys on this platform sloping northward, but exceedingly even,
generally run north and south; their sides near the summits generally
become suddenly more abrupt, and are fringed with narrow strips, or, as
they are here called, "shaws" of wood, sometimes merely by hedgerows run
wild. The sudden steepness may generally be perceived, as just before
ascending to Cudham Wood, and at Green Hill, where one of the lanes
crosses these valleys. These valleys are in all probability ancient sea-bays,
and I have sometimes speculated whether this sudden steepening of the
sides does not mark the edges of vertical cliffs formed when these valleys
were filled with sea-water, as would naturally happen in strata such as the
chalk.

In most countries the roads and footpaths ascend along the bottoms of
valleys, but here this is scarcely ever the case. All the villages and most of
the ancient houses are on the platforms or narrow strips of flat land between
the parallel valleys. Is this owing to the summits having existed from the
most ancient times as open downs and the valleys having been filled up
with brushwood? I have no evidence of this, but it is certain that most of the
farmhouses on the flat land are very ancient. There is one peculiarity which
would help to determine the footpaths to run along the summits instead of
the bottom of the valleys, in that these latter in the middle are generally
covered, even far more thickly than the general surface, with broken flints.
This bed of flints, which gradually thins away on each side, can be seen
from a long distance in a newly ploughed or fallow field as a whitish band.
Every stone which ever rolls after heavy rain or from the kick of an animal,
ever so little, all tend to the bottom of the valleys; but whether this is
sufficient to account for their number I have sometimes doubted, and have
been inclined to apply to the case Lyell's theory of solution by rain-water,
etc., etc.
The flat summit-land is covered with a bed of stiff red clay, from a few
feet in thickness to as much, I believe, as twenty feet: this {bed}, though
lying immediately on the chalk, and abounding with great, irregularly
shaped, unrolled flints, often with the colour and appearance of huge bones,
which were originally embedded in the chalk, contains not a particle of
carbonate of lime. This bed of red clay lies on a very irregular surface, and
often descends into deep round wells, the origin of which has been
explained by Lyell. In these cavities are patches of sand like sea-sand, and
like the sand which alternates with the great beds of small pebbles derived
from the wear-and-tear of chalk-flints, which form Keston, Hayes and
Addington Commons. Near Down a rounded chalk-flint is a rarity, though
some few do occur; and I have not yet seen a stone of distant origin, which
makes a difference—at least to geological eyes—in the very aspect of the
country, compared with all the northern counties.
The chalk-flints decay externally, which, according to Berzelius ("Edin.
New Phil. Journal," late number), is owing to the flints containing a small
proportion of alkali; but, besides this external decay, the whole body is
affected by exposure of a few years, so that they will not break with clean
faces for building.

This bed of red clay, which renders the country very slippery in the
winter months from October to April, does not cover the sides of the
valleys; these, when ploughed, show the white chalk, which tint shades
away lower in the valley, as insensibly as a colour laid on by a painter's
brush.
Nearly all the land is ploughed, and is often left fallow, which gives the
country a naked red look, or not unfrequently white, from a covering of
chalk laid on by the farmers. Nobody seems at all aware on what principle
fresh chalk laid on land abounding with lime does it any good. This,
however, is said to have been the practice of the country ever since the
period of the Romans, and at present the many white pits on the hill sides,
which so frequently afford a picturesque contrast with the overhanging yew
trees, are all quarried for this purpose.
The number of different kinds of bushes in the hedgerows, entwined by
traveller's joy and the bryonies, is conspicuous compared with the hedges of
the northern counties.
March 25th {1844?}.—The first period of vegetation, and the banks are
clothed with pale-blue violets to an extent I have never seen equalled, and
with primroses. A few days later some of the copses were beautifully
enlivened by Ranunculus auricomus, wood anemones, and a white Stellaria.
Again, subsequently, large areas were brilliantly blue with bluebells. The
flowers are here very beautiful, and the number of flowers; {and} the
darkness of the blue of the common little Polygala almost equals it to an
alpine gentian.
There are large tracts of woodland, {cut down} about once every ten
years; some of these enclosures seem to be very ancient. On the south side
of Cudham Wood a beech hedge has grown to Brobdignagian size, with
several of the huge branches crossing each other and firmly grafted
together.
Larks abound here, and their songs sound most agreeably on all sides;
nightingales are common. Judging from an odd cooing note, something like
the purring of a cat, doves are very common in the woods.
June 25th.—The sainfoin fields are now of the most beautiful pink, and
from the number of hive-bees frequenting them the humming noise is quite
extraordinary. This humming is rather deeper than the humming overhead,
which has been continuous and loud during all these last hot days over

almost every field. The labourers here say it is made by "air-bees," and one
man, seeing a wild bee in a flower different from the hive kind, remarked:
"That, no doubt, is an air-bee." This noise is considered as a sign of settled
fair weather.

CHAPTER 1.II.—EVOLUTION, 1844-1858.
(Chapter II./1. Since the publication of the "Life and Letters," Mr.
Huxley's obituary notice of Charles Darwin has appeared. (Chapter II./2.
"Proc. R. Soc." volume 44, 1888, and "Collected Essays (Darwiniana),"
page 253, 1899.) This masterly paper is, in our opinion, the finest of the
great series of Darwinian essays which we owe to Mr. Huxley. We would
venture to recommend it to our readers as the best possible introduction to
these pages. There is, however, one small point in which we differ from Mr.
Huxley. In discussing the growth of Mr. Darwin's evolutionary views, Mr.
Huxley quotes from the autobiography (Chapter II./3. "Life and Letters," I.,
page 82. Some account of the origin of his evolutionary views is given in a
letter to Jenyns (Blomefield), "Life and Letters," II. page 34.) a passage in
which the writer describes the deep impression made on his mind by certain
groups of facts observed in South America. Mr. Huxley goes on: "The facts
to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to
attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but, until the relations of the
existing with the extinct species, and of the species of the different
geographical areas with one another, were determined with some exactness,
they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation. It was not possible
that this determination should have been effected before the return of the
"Beagle" to England; and thus the date (Chapter II./4. The date in question
is July 1837, when he "opened first note-book on Transmutation of
Species.') which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to the dawn of the new
light which was rising in his mind, becomes intelligible." This seems to us
inconsistent with Darwin's own statement that it was especially the
character of the "species on Galapagos Archipelago" which had impressed
him. (Chapter II./5. See "Life and Letters," I., page 276.) This must refer to
the zoological specimens: no doubt he was thinking of the birds, but these
he had himself collected in 1835 (Chapter II./6. He wrote in his "Journal,"
page 394, "My attention was first thoroughly aroused, by comparing
together the numerous specimens shot by myself and several other parties
on board," etc.), and no accurate determination of the forms was necessary
to impress on him the remarkable characteristic species of the different

islands. We agree with Mr. Huxley that 1837 is the date of the "new light
which was rising in his mind." That the dawn did not come sooner seems to
us to be accounted for by the need of time to produce so great a revolution
in his conceptions. We do not see that Mr. Huxley's supposition as to the
effect of the determination of species, etc., has much weight. Mr. Huxley
quotes a letter from Darwin to Zacharias, "But I did not become convinced
that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years {after 1837} had
elapsed" (see Letter 278). This passage, which it must be remembered was
written in 1877, is all but irreconcilable with the direct evidence of the 1837
note-book. A series of passages are quoted from it in the "Life and Letters,"
Volume II., pages 5 et seq., and these it is impossible to read without feeling
that he was convinced of immutability. He had not yet attained to a clear
idea of Natural Selection, and therefore his views may not have had, even to
himself, the irresistible convincing power they afterwards gained; but that
he was, in the ordinary sense of the word, convinced of the truth of the
doctrine of evolution we cannot doubt. He thought it "almost useless" to try
to prove the truth of evolution until the cause of change was discovered.
And it is natural that in later life he should have felt that conviction was
wanting till that cause was made out. (Chapter II./7. See "Charles Darwin,
his Life told, etc." 1892, page 165.) For the purposes of the present chapter
the point is not very material. We know that in 1842 he wrote the first
sketch of his theory, and that it was greatly amplified in 1844. So that, at the
date of the first letters of this chapter, we know that he had a working
hypothesis of evolution which did not differ in essentials from that given in
the "Origin of Species."
To realise the amount of work that was in progress during the period
covered by Chapter II., it should be remembered that during part of the time
—namely, from 1846 to 1854—he was largely occupied by his work on the
Cirripedes. (Chapter II./8. "Life and Letters," I. page 346.) This research
would have fully occupied a less methodical workman, and even to those
who saw him at work it seemed his whole occupation. Thus (to quote a
story of Lord Avebury's) one of Mr. Darwin's children is said to have asked,
in regard to a neighbour, "Then where does he do his barnacles?" as though
not merely his father, but all other men, must be occupied on that group.
Sir Joseph Hooker, to whom the first letter in this chapter is addressed,
was good enough to supply a note on the origin of his intimacy with Mr.
Darwin, and this is published in the "Life and Letters." (Chapter II./9. Ibid.,

II., page 19. See also "Nature," 1899, June 22nd, page 187, where some
reminiscences are published, which formed part of Sir Joseph's speech at
the unveiling of Darwin's statue in the Oxford Museum.) The close
intercourse that sprang up between them was largely carried on by
correspondence, and Mr. Darwin's letters to Sir Joseph have supplied most
valuable biographical material. But it should not be forgotten that, quite
apart from this, science owes much to this memorable friendship, since
without Hooker's aid Darwin's great work would hardly have been carried
out on the botanical side. And Sir Joseph did far more than supply
knowledge and guidance in technical matters: Darwin owed to him a
sympathetic and inspiriting comradeship which cheered and refreshed him
to the end of his life.
A sentence from a letter to Hooker written in 1845 shows, quite as well
as more serious utterances, how quickly the acquaintance grew into
friendship.
"Farewell! What a good thing is community of tastes! I feel as if I had
known you for fifty years. Adios." And in illustration of the permanence of
the sympathetic bond between them, we quote a letter of 1881 written forty-
two years after the first meeting with Sir Joseph in Trafalgar Square (see
"Life and Letters," II., page 19). Mr. Darwin wrote: "Your letter has cheered
me, and the world does not look a quarter so black this morning as it did
when I wrote before. Your friendly words are worth their weight in gold.")
LETTER 13. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday {January 11th, 1844}.
My dear Sir
I must write to thank you for your last letter, and to tell you how much all
your views and facts interest me. I must be allowed to put my own
interpretation on what you say of "not being a good arranger of extended
views"—which is, that you do not indulge in the loose speculations so
easily started by every smatterer and wandering collector. I look at a strong
tendency to generalise as an entire evil.
What you say of Mr. Brown is humiliating; I had suspected it, but would
not allow myself to believe in such heresy. Fitz-Roy gave him a rap in his
preface (13/1. In the preface to the "Surveying Voyages of the 'Adventure'
and the 'Beagle,' 1826-30, forming Volume I of the work, which includes
the later voyage of the "Beagle," Captain Fitz-Roy wrote (March, 1839):
"Captain King took great pains in forming and preserving a botanical

collection, aided by a person embarked solely for that purpose. He placed
this collection in the British Museum, and was led to expect that a first-rate
botanist would have examined and described it; but he has been
disappointed." A reference to Robert Brown's dilatoriness over King's
collection occurs in the "Life and Letters," I., page 274, note.), and made
him very indignant, but it seems a much harder one would not have been
wasted. My cryptogamic collection was sent to Berkeley; it was not large. I
do not believe he has yet published an account, but he wrote to me some
year ago that he had described {the specimens} and mislaid all his
descriptions. Would it not be well for you to put yourself in communication
with him, as otherwise something will perhaps be twice laboured over? My
best (though poor) collection of the cryptogams was from the Chonos
Islands.
Would you kindly observe one little fact for me, whether any species of
plant, peculiar to any island, as Galapagos, St. Helena, or New Zealand,
where there are no large quadrupeds, have hooked seeds—such hooks as, if
observed here, would be thought with justness to be adapted to catch into
wool of animals.
Would you further oblige me some time by informing me (though I forget
this will certainly appear in your "Antarctic Flora") whether in islands like
St. Helena, Galapagos, and New Zealand, the number of families and
genera are large compared with the number of species, as happens in coral
islands, and as, I believe, in the extreme Arctic land. Certainly this is the
case with marine shells in extreme Arctic seas. Do you suppose the fewness
of species in proportion to number of large groups in coral islets is owing to
the chance of seeds from all orders getting drifted to such new spots, as I
have supposed. Did you collect sea-shells in Kerguelen-land? I should like
to know their character.
Your interesting letters tempt me to be very unreasonable in asking you
questions; but you must not give yourself any trouble about them, for I
know how fully and worthily you are employed. (13/2. The rest of the letter
has been previously published in "Life and Letters," II., page 23.)
Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I have been now ever
since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know no one
individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with the
distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc., and with the character of the

American fossil mammifers, etc., that I determined to collect blindly every
sort of fact which could bear any way on what are species. I have read
heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased
collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost
convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not
(it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from
Lamarck nonsense of a "tendency to progression," "adaptations from the
slow willing of animals," etc.! But the conclusions I am led to are not
widely different from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I think
I have found out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which species
become exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and think
to yourself, "on what a man have I been wasting my time and writing to." I
should, five years ago, have thought so...(13/3. On the questions here dealt
with see the interesting letter to Jenyns in the "Life and Letters," II., page
34.)
LETTER 14. TO J.D. HOOKER. {November} 1844.
...What a curious, wonderful case is that of the Lycopodium! (14/1. Sir
J.D. Hooker wrote, November 8, 1844: "I am firmly convinced (but not
enough to print it) that L. Selago varies in Van Diemen's Land into L.
varium. Two more different SPECIES (as they have hitherto been thought),
per se cannot be conceived, but nowhere else do they vary into one another,
nor does Selago vary at all in England.")...I suppose you would hardly have
expected them to be more varying than a phanerogamic plant. I trust you
will work the case out, and, even if unsupported, publish it, for you can
surely do this with due caution. I have heard of some analogous facts,
though on the smallest scale, in certain insects being more variable in one
district than in another, and I think the same holds with some land-shells.
By a strange chance I had noted to ask you in this letter an analogous
question, with respect to genera, in lieu of individual species,—that is,
whether you know of any case of a genus with most of its species being
variable (say Rubus) in one continent, having another set of species in
another continent non-variable, or not in so marked a manner. Mr. Herbert
(14/2. No doubt Dean Herbert, the horticulturist. See "Life and Letters," I.,
page 343.) incidentally mentioned in a letter to me that the heaths at the
Cape of Good Hope were very variable, whilst in Europe they are (?) not
so; but then the species here are few in comparison, so that the case, even if
true, is not a good one. In some genera of insects the variability appears to

be common in distant parts of the world. In shells, I hope hereafter to get
much light on this question through fossils. If you can help me, I should be
very much obliged: indeed, all your letters are most useful to me.
MONDAY:—Now for your first long letter, and to me quite as interesting
as long. Several things are quite new to me in it—viz., for one, your belief
that there are more extra-tropical than intra-tropical species. I see that my
argument from the Arctic regions is false, and I should not have tried to
argue against you, had I not fancied that you thought that equability of
climate was the direct cause of the creation of a greater or lesser number of
species. I see you call our climate equable; I should have thought it was the
contrary. Anyhow, the term is vague, and in England will depend upon
whether a person compares it with the United States or Tierra del Fuego. In
my Journal (page 342) I see I state that in South Chiloe, at a height of about
1,000 feet, the forests had a Fuegian aspect: I distinctly recollect that at the
sea-level in the middle of Chiloe the forest had almost a tropical aspect. I
should like much to hear, if you make out, whether the N. or S. boundaries
of a plant are the most restricted; I should have expected that the S. would
be, in the temperate regions, from the number of antagonist species being
greater. N.B. Humboldt, when in London, told me of some river (14/3. The
Obi (see "Flora Antarctica," page 211, note). Hooker writes: "Some of the
most conspicuous trees attain either of its banks, but do not cross them.") in
N.E. Europe, on the opposite banks of which the flora was, on the same soil
and under same climate, widely different!
I forget (14/4. The last paragraph is published in "Life and Letters," II.,
page 29.) my last letter, but it must have been a very silly one, as it seems I
gave my notion of the number of species being in great degree governed by
the degree to which the area had been often isolated and divided. I must
have been cracked to have written it, for I have no evidence, without a
person be willing to admit all my views, and then it does follow.
(14/5. The remainder of the foregoing letter is published in the "Life and
Letters," II., page 29. It is interesting as giving his views on the mutability
of species. Thus he wrote: "With respect to books on this subject, I do not
know any systematical ones, except Lamarck's, which is veritable rubbish;
but there are plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, etc., on the view of the
immutability." By "Pritchard" is no doubt intended James Cowles
"Prichard," author of the "Physical History of Mankind." Prof. Poulton has

given in his paper, "A remarkable Anticipation of Modern Views on
Evolution" (14/6. "Science Progress," Volume I., April 1897, page 278.), an
interesting study of Prichard's work. He shows that Prichard was in advance
of his day in his views on the non-transmission of acquired characters. Prof.
Poulton also tries to show that Prichard was an evolutionist. He allows that
Prichard wrote with hesitation, and that in the later editions of his book his
views became weaker. But, even with these qualifications, we think that
Poulton has unintentionally exaggerated the degree to which Prichard
believed in evolution.
One of Prichard's strongest sentences is quoted by Poulton (loc. cit., page
16); it occurs in the "Physical History of Mankind," Ed. 2, Volume II., page
570:—
"Is it not probable that the varieties which spring up within the limits of
particular species are further adaptations of structure to the circumstances
under which the tribe is destined to exist? Varieties branch out from the
common form of a species, just as the forms of species deviate from the
common type of a genus. Why should the one class of phenomena be
without end or utility, a mere effect of contingency or chance, more than the
other?"
If this passage, and others similar to it, stood alone, we might agree with
Prof. Poulton; but this is impossible when we find in Volume I. of the same
edition, page 90, the following uncompromising statement of immutability:
—
"The meaning attached to the term species, in natural history, is very
simple and obvious. It includes only one circumstance—namely, an original
distinctness and constant transmission of any character. A race of animals,
or plants, marked by any peculiarities of structure which have always been
constant and undeviating, constitutes a species."
On page 91, in speaking of the idea that the species which make up a
genus may have descended from a common form, he says:—
"There must, indeed, be some principle on which the phenomena of
resemblance, as well as those of diversity, may be explained; and the
reference of several forms to a common type seems calculated to suggest
the idea of some original affinity; but, as this is merely a conjecture, it must
be kept out of sight when our inquiries respect matters of fact only."

This view is again given in Volume II., page 569, where he asks whether
we should believe that "at the first production of a genus, when it first grew
into existence, some slight modification in the productive causes stamped it
originally with all these specific diversities? Or is it most probable that the
modification was subsequent to its origin, and that the genus at its first
creation was one and uniform, and afterwards became diversified by the
influence of external agents?" He concludes that "the former of these
suppositions is the conclusion to which we are led by all that can be
ascertained respecting the limits of species, and the extent of variation
under the influence of causes at present existing and operating."
In spite of the fact that Prichard did not carry his ideas to their logical
conclusion, it may perhaps excite surprise that Mr. Darwin should have
spoken of him as absolutely on the side of immutability.
We believe it to be partly accounted for (as Poulton suggests) by the fact
that Mr. Darwin possessed only the third edition (1836 and 1837) and the
fourth edition (1841-51). (14/7. The edition of 1841-51 consists of reprints
of the third edition and three additional volumes of various dates. Volumes
I. and II. are described in the title-page as the fourth edition; Volumes III.
and IV. as the third edition, and Volume V. has no edition marked in the
title.) In neither of these is the evolutionary point of view so strong as in the
second edition.
We have gone through all the passages marked by Mr. Darwin for future
reference in the third and fourth editions, and have been only able to find
the following, which occurs in the third edition (Volume I., 1836, page 242)
(14/8. There is also (ed. 1837, Volume II., page 344) a vague reference to
Natural Selection, of which the last sentence is enclosed in pencil in
inverted commas, as though Mr. Darwin had intended to quote it: "In other
parts of Africa the xanthous variety {of man} often appears, but does not
multiply. Individuals thus characterised are like seeds which perish in an
uncongenial soil.")
"The variety in form, prevalent among all organised productions of
nature, is found to subsist between individual beings of whatever species,
even when they are offspring of the same parents. Another circumstance
equally remarkable is the tendency which exists in almost every tribe,
whether of animals or of plants, to transmit to their offspring and to
perpetuate in their race all individual peculiarities which may thus have

taken their rise. These two general facts in the economy of organised beings
lay a foundation for the existence of diversified races, originating from the
same primitive stock and within the limits of identical species."
On the following page (page 243) a passage (not marked by Mr. Darwin)
emphasises the limitation which Prichard ascribed to the results of variation
and inheritance:—
"Even those physiologists who contend for what is termed the indefinite
nature of species admit that they have limits at present and under ordinary
circumstances. Whatever diversities take place happen without breaking in
upon the characteristic type of the species. This is transmitted from
generation to generation: goats produce goats, and sheep, sheep."
The passage on page 242 occurs in the reprint of the 1836-7 edition
which forms part of the 1841-51 edition, but is not there marked by Mr.
Darwin. He notes at the end of Volume I. of the 1836-7 edition: "March,
1857. I have not looked through all these {i.e. marked passages}, but I have
gone through the later edition"; and a similar entry is in Volume II. of the
third edition. It is therefore easy to understand how he came to overlook the
passage on page 242 when he began the fuller statement of his species
theory which is referred to in the "Life and Letters" as the "unfinished
book." In the historical sketch prefixed to the "Origin of Species" writers
are named as precursors whose claims are less strong than Prichard's, and it
is certain that Mr. Darwin would have given an account of him if he had
thought of him as an evolutionist.
The two following passages will show that Mr. Darwin was, from his
knowledge of Prichard's books, justified in classing him among those who
did not believe in the mutability of species:
"The various tribes of organised beings were originally placed by the
Creator in certain regions, for which they are by their nature peculiarly
adapted. Each species had only one beginning in a single stock: probably a
single pair, as Linnaeus supposed, was first called into being in some
particular spot, and the progeny left to disperse themselves to as great a
distance from the original centre of their existence as the locomotive
powers bestowed on them, or their capability of bearing changes of climate
and other physical agencies, may have enabled them to wander." (14/9.
Prichard, third edition, 1836-7, Volume I., page 96.)

The second passage is annotated by Mr. Darwin with a shower of
exclamation marks:
"The meaning attached to the term SPECIES in natural history is very
definite and intelligible. It includes only the following conditions—namely,
separate origin and distinctness of race, evinced by the constant
transmission of some characteristic peculiarity of organisation. A race of
animals or of plants marked by any peculiar character which has always
been constant and undeviating constitutes a species; and two races are
considered as specifically different, if they are distinguished from each
other by some characteristic which one cannot be supposed to have
acquired, or the other to have lost through any known operation of physical
causes; for we are hence led to conclude that the tribes thus distinguished
have not descended from the same original stock." (14/10. Prichard, ed.
1836-7, Volume I., page 106. This passage is almost identical with that
quoted from the second edition, Volume I., page 90. The latter part, from
"and two races...," occurs in the second edition, though not quoted above.)
As was his custom, Mr. Darwin pinned at the end of the first volume of
the 1841-51 edition a piece of paper containing a list of the pages where
marked passages occur. This paper bears, written in pencil, "How like my
book all this will be!" The words appear to refer to Prichard's discussion on
the dispersal of animals and plants; they certainly do not refer to the
evolutionary views to be found in the book.)
LETTER 15. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1844}.
Thank you exceedingly for your long letter, and I am in truth ashamed of
the time and trouble you have taken for me; but I must some day write
again to you on the subject of your letter. I will only now observe that you
have extended my remark on the range of species of shells into the range of
genera or groups. Analogy from shells would only go so far, that if two or
three species...were found to range from America to India, they would be
found to extend through an unusual thickness of strata—say from the Upper
Cretaceous to its lowest bed, or the Neocomian. Or you may reverse it and
say those species which range throughout the whole Cretaceous, will have
wide ranges: viz., from America through Europe to India (this is one actual
case with shells in the Cretaceous period).
LETTER 16. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1845}.

I ought to have written sooner to say that I am very willing to subscribe 1
pound 1 shilling to the African man (though it be murder on a small scale),
and will send you a Post-office-order payable to Kew, if you will be so
good as to take charge of it. Thanks for your information about the
Antarctic Zoology; I got my numbers when in Town on Thursday: would it
be asking your publisher to take too much trouble to send your Botany
{"Flora Antarctica," by J.D. Hooker, 1844} to the Athenaeum Club? he
might send two or three numbers together. I am really ashamed to think of
your having given me such a valuable work; all I can say is that I appreciate
your present in two ways—as your gift, and for its great use to my species-
work. I am very glad to hear that you mean to attack this subject some day.
I wonder whether we shall ever be public combatants; anyhow, I
congratulate myself in a most unfair advantage of you, viz., in having
extracted more facts and views from you than from any one other person. I
daresay your explanation of polymorphism on volcanic islands may be the
right one; the reason I am curious about it is, the fact of the birds on the
Galapagos being in several instances very fine-run species—that is, in
comparing them, not so much one with another, as with their analogues
from the continent. I have somehow felt, like you, that an alpine form of a
plant is not a true variety; and yet I cannot admit that the simple fact of the
cause being assignable ought to prevent its being called a variety; every
variation must have some cause, so that the difference would rest on our
knowledge in being able or not to assign the cause. Do you consider that a
true variety should be produced by causes acting through the parent? But
even taking this definition, are you sure that alpine forms are not inherited
from one, two, or three generations? Now, would not this be a curious and
valuable experiment (16/1. For an account of work of this character, see
papers by G. Bonnier in the "Revue Generale," Volume II., 1890; "Ann. Sc.
Nat." Volume XX.; "Revue Generale," Volume VII.), viz., to get seeds of
some alpine plant, a little more hairy, etc., etc., than its lowland fellow, and
raise seedlings at Kew: if this has not been done, could you not get it done?
Have you anybody in Scotland from whom you could get the seeds?
I have been interested by your remarks on Senecia and Gnaphalium:
would it not be worth while (I should be very curious to hear the result) to
make a short list of the generally considered variable or polymorphous
genera, as Rosa, Salix, Rubus, etc., etc., and reflect whether such genera are

generally mundane, and more especially whether they have distinct or
identical (or closely allied) species in their different and distant habitats.
Don't forget me, if you ever stumble on cases of the same species being
MORE or LESS variable in different countries.
With respect to the word "sterile" as used for male or polleniferous
flowers, it has always offended my ears dreadfully; on the same principle
that it would to hear a potent stallion, ram or bull called sterile, because
they did not bear, as well as beget, young.
With respect to your geological-map suggestion, I wish with all my heart
I could follow it; but just reflect on the number of measurements requisite;
why, at present it could not be done even in England, even with the
assumption of the land having simply risen any exact number of feet. But
subsidence in most cases has hopelessly complexed the problem: see what
Jordanhill-Smith (16/2. James Smith, of Jordan Hill, author of a paper "On
the Geology of Gibraltar" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume II., page 41,
1846).) says of the dance up and down, many times, which Gibraltar has
had all within the recent period. Such maps as Lyell (16/3. "Principles of
Geology," 1875, Volume I., Plate I, page 254.) has published of sea and land
at the beginning of the Tertiary period must be excessively inaccurate: it
assumes that every part on which Tertiary beds have not been deposited,
must have then been dry land,—a most doubtful assumption.
I have been amused by Chambers v. Hooker on the K. Cabbage. I see in
the "Explanations" (the spirit of which, though not the facts, ought to shame
Sedgwick) that "Vestiges" considers all land-animals and plants to have
passed from marine forms; so Chambers is quite in accordance. Did you
hear Forbes, when here, giving the rather curious evidence (from a
similarity in error) that Chambers must be the author of the "Vestiges": your
case strikes me as some confirmation. I have written an unreasonably long
and dull letter, so farewell. (16/4. "Explanations: A Sequel to the Vestiges of
the Natural History of Creation" was published in 1845, after the
appearance of the fourth edition of the "Vestiges," by way of reply to the
criticisms on the original book. The "K. cabbage" referred to at the
beginning of the paragraph is Pringlea antiscorbutica," the "Kerguelen
Cabbage" described by Sir J.D. Hooker in his "Flora Antarctica." What
Chambers wrote on this subject we have not discovered. The mention of
Sedgwick is a reference to his severe review of the "Vestiges" in the

"Edinburgh Review," 1845, volume 82, page 1. Darwin described it as
savouring "of the dogmatism of the pulpit" ("Life and Letters," I., page
344). Mr. Ireland's edition of the "Vestiges" (1844), in which Robert
Chambers was first authentically announced as the author, contains (page
xxix) an extract from a letter written by Chambers in 1860, in which the
following passage occurs, "The April number of the 'Edinburgh Review"'
(1860) makes all but a direct amende for the abuse it poured upon my work
a number of years ago." This is the well-known review by Owen, to which
references occur in the "Life and Letters," II., page 300. The amende to the
"Vestiges" is not so full as the author felt it to be; but it was clearly in place
in a paper intended to belittle the "Origin"; it also gave the reviewer (page
511) an opportunity for a hit at Sedgwick and his 1845 review.)
LETTER 17. TO L. BLOMEFIELD {JENYNS}. Down. February 14th
{1845}.
I have taken my leisure in thanking you for your last letter and
discussion, to me very interesting, on the increase of species. Since your
letter, I have met with a very similar view in Richardson, who states that the
young are driven away by the old into unfavourable districts, and there
mostly perish. When one meets with such unexpected statistical returns on
the increase and decrease and proportion of deaths and births amongst
mankind, and in this well-known country of ours, one ought not to be in the
least surprised at one's ignorance, when, where, and how the endless
increase of our robins and sparrows is checked.
Thanks for your hints about terms of "mutation," etc.; I had some
suspicions that it was not quite correct, and yet I do not see my way to
arrive at any better terms. It will be years before I publish, so that I shall
have plenty of time to think of better words. Development would perhaps
do, only it is applied to the changes of an individual during its growth. I am,
however, very glad of your remark, and will ponder over it.
We are all well, wife and children three, and as flourishing as this horrid,
house-confining, tempestuous weather permits.
LETTER 18. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1845}.
I hope you are getting on well with your lectures, and that you have
enjoyed some pleasant walks during the late delightful weather. I write to
tell you (as perhaps you might have had fears on the subject) that your

books have arrived safely. I am exceedingly obliged to you for them, and
will take great care of them; they will take me some time to read carefully.
I send to-day the corrected MS. of the first number of my "Journal"
(18/1. In 1842 he had written to his sister: "Talking of money, I reaped the
other day all the profit which I shall ever get from my "Journal" {"Journal
of Researches, etc."} which consisted in paying Mr. Colburn 21 pounds 10
shillings for the copies which I presented to different people; 1,337 copies
have been sold. This is a comfortable arrangement, is it not?" He was
proved wrong in his gloomy prophecy, as the second edition was published
by Mr. Murray in 1845.) in the Colonial Library, so that if you chance to
know of any gross mistake in the first 214 pages (if you have my
"Journal"), I should be obliged to you to tell me.
Do not answer this for form's sake; for you must be very busy. We have
just had the Lyells here, and you ought to have a wife to stop your working
too much, as Mrs. Lyell peremptorily stops Lyell.
LETTER 19. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(19/1. Sir J.D. Hooker's letters to Mr. Darwin seem to fix the date as
1845, while the reference to Forbes' paper indicates 1846.)
Down {1845-1846}.
I am particularly obliged for your facts about solitary islands having
several species of peculiar genera; it knocks on the head some analogies of
mine; the point stupidly never occurred to me to ask about. I am amused at
your anathemas against variation and co.; whatever you may be pleased to
say, you will never be content with simple species, "as they are." I defy you
to steel your mind to technicalities, like so many of our brother naturalists. I
am much pleased that I thought of sending you Forbes' article. (19/2. E.
Forbes' celebrated paper "Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great
Britain," Volume I., page 336, 1846. In Lyell's "Principles," 7th Edition,
1847, page 676, he makes a temperate claim of priority, as he had already
done in a private letter of October 14th, 1846, to Forbes ("Life of Sir
Charles Lyell," 1881, Volume II., page 106) both as regards the Sicilian
flora and the barrier effect of mountain-chains. See Letter 20 for a note on
Forbes.) I confess I cannot make out the evidence of his time-notions in
distribution, and I cannot help suspecting that they are rather vague. Lyell
preceded Forbes in one class of speculation of this kind: for instance, in his
explaining the identity of the Sicily Flora with that of South Italy, by its

having been wholly upraised within the recent period; and, so I believe,
with mountain-chains separating floras. I do not remember Humboldt's fact
about the heath regions. Very curious the case of the broom; I can tell you
something analogous on a small scale. My father, when he built his house,
sowed many broom-seeds on a wild bank, which did not come up, owing,
as it was thought, to much earth having been thrown over them. About
thirty-five years afterwards, in cutting a terrace, all this earth was thrown
up, and now the bank is one mass of broom. I see we were in some degree
talking to cross-purposes; when I said I did {not} much believe in
hybridising to any extent, I did not mean at all to exclude crossing. It has
long been a hobby of mine to see in how many flowers such crossing is
probable; it was, I believe, Knight's view, originally, that every plant must
be occasionally crossed. (19/3. See an article on "The Knight-Darwin law"
by Francis Darwin in "Nature," October 27th, 1898, page 630.) I find,
however, plenty of difficulty in showing even a vague probability of this;
especially in the Leguminosae, though their {structure?} is inimitably
adapted to favour crossing, I have never yet met with but one instance of a
NATURAL MONGREL (nor mule?) in this family.
I shall be particularly curious to hear some account of the appearance and
origin of the Ayrshire Irish Yew. And now for the main object of my letter: it
is to ask whether you would just run your eye over the proof of my
Galapagos chapter (19/4. In the second edition of the "Naturalist's
Voyage."), where I mention the plants, to see that I have made no blunders,
or spelt any of the scientific names wrongly. As I daresay you will so far
oblige me, will you let me know a few days before, when you leave
Edinburgh and how long you stay at Kinnordy, so that my letter might catch
you. I am not surprised at my collection from James Island differing from
others, as the damp upland district (where I slept two nights) is six miles
from the coast, and no naturalist except myself probably ever ascended to it.
Cuming had never even heard of it. Cuming tells me that he was on
Charles, James, and Albemarle Islands, and that he cannot remember from
my description the Scalesia, but thinks he could if he saw a specimen. I
have no idea of the origin of the distribution of the Galapagos shells, about
which you ask. I presume (after Forbes' excellent remarks on the facilities
by which embryo-shells are transported) that the Pacific shells have been
borne thither by currents; but the currents all run the other way.

(PLATE: EDWARD FORBES 1844? From a photograph by Hill &
Adamson.)
LETTER 20. EDWARD FORBES TO C. DARWIN.
(20/1. Edward Forbes was at work on his celebrated paper in the
"Geological Survey Memoirs" for 1846. We have not seen the letter of
Darwin's to which this is a reply, nor, indeed, any of his letters to Forbes.
The date of the letter is fixed by Forbes's lecture given at the Royal
Institution on February 27th, 1846 (according to L. Horner's privately
printed "Memoirs," II., page 94.))
Wednesday. 3, Southwark Street, Hyde Park. {1846}.
Dear Darwin
To answer your very welcome letter, so far from being a waste of time, is
a gain, for it obliges me to make myself clear and understood on matters
which I have evidently put forward imperfectly and with obscurity. I have
devoted the whole of this week to working and writing out the flora
question, for I now feel strong enough to give my promised evening lecture
on it at the Royal Institution on Friday, and, moreover, wish to get it in
printable form for the Reports of our Survey. Therefore at no time can I
receive or answer objections with more benefit than now. From the hurry
and pressure which unfortunately attend all my movements and doings I
rarely have time to spare, in preparing for publication, to do more than give
brief and unsatisfactory abstracts, which I fear are often extremely obscure.
Now for your objections—which have sprung out of my own obscurities.
I do not argue in a circle about the Irish case, but treat the botanical
evidence of connection and the geological as distinct. The former only I
urged at Cambridge; the latter I have not yet publicly maintained.
My Cambridge argument (20/2. "On the Distribution of Endemic Plants,"
by E. Forbes, "Brit. Assoc. Rep." 1845 (Cambridge), page 67.) was this:
That no known currents, whether of water or air, or ordinary means of
transport (20/3. Darwin's note on transportation (found with Forbes' letter):
"Forbes' arguments, from several Spanish plants in Ireland not being
transported, not sound, because sea-currents and air ditto and migration of
birds in SAME LINES. I have thought not-transportation the greatest
difficulty. Now we see how many seeds every plant and tree requires to be
regularly propagated in its own country, for we cannot think the great

number of seeds superfluous, and therefore how small is the chance of here
and there a solitary seedling being preserved in a well-stocked country."),
would account for the little group of Asturian plants—few as to species, but
playing a conspicuous part in the vegetation—giving a peculiar botanical
character to the south of Ireland; that, as I had produced evidence of the
other floras of our islands, i.e. the Germanic, the Cretaceous, and the
Devonian (these terms used topographically, not geologically) having been
acquired by migration over continuous land (the glacial or alpine flora I
except for the present—as ice-carriage might have played a great part in its
introduction)—I considered it most probable, and maintained, that the
introduction of that Irish flora was also effected by the same means. I held
also that the character of this flora was more southern and more ancient
than that of any of the others, and that its fragmentary and limited state was
probably due to the plants composing it having (from their comparative
hardiness—heaths, saxifrages, etc.) survived the destroying influence of the
glacial epoch.
My geological argument now is as follows: half the Mediterranean
islands, or more, are partly—in some cases (as Malta) wholly—composed
of the upheaved bed of the Miocene sea; so is a great part of the south of
France from Bordeaux to Montpellier; so is the west of Portugal; and we
find the corresponding beds with the same fossils (Pecten latissimus, etc.) in
the Azores. So general an upheaval seems to me to indicate the former
existence of a great post-Miocene land {in} the region of what is usually
called the Mediterranean flora. (Everywhere these Miocene islands, etc.,
bear a flora of true type.) If this land existed, it did not extend to America,
for the fossils of the Miocene of America are representative and not
identical. Where, then, was the edge or coast-line of it, Atlantic-wards?
Look at the form and constancy of the great fucus-bank, and consider that it
is a Sargassum bank, and that the Sargassum there is in an abnormal
condition, and that the species of this genus of fuci are essentially ground-
growers, and then see the probability of this bank having originated on a
line of ancient coast.
Now, having thus argued independently, first on my flora and second on
the geological evidences of land in the quarter required, I put the two
together to bear up my Irish case.

I cannot admit the Sargassum case to be parallel with that of Confervae
or Oscillatoria.
I think I have evidence from the fossils of the boulder formations in
Ireland that if such Miocene land existed it must have been broken up or
partially broken up at the epoch of the glacial or boulder period.
All objections thankfully received.
Ever most sincerely,
EDWARD FORBES.
LETTER 21. TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down. {1846}.
I am much obliged for your note and kind intended present of your
volume. (21/1. No doubt the late Mr. Blomefield's "Observations in Natural
History." See "Life and Letters," II., page 31.) I feel sure I shall like it, for
all discussions and observations on what the world would call trifling points
in Natural History always appear to me very interesting. In such foreign
periodicals as I have seen, there are no such papers as White, or Waterton,
or some few other naturalists in Loudon's and Charlesworth's Journal,
would have written; and a great loss it has always appeared to me. I should
have much liked to have met you in London, but I cannot leave home, as
my wife is recovering from a rather sharp fever attack, and I am myself
slaving to finish my S. American Geology (21/2. "Geological Observations
in South America" (London), 1846.), of which, thanks to all Plutonic
powers, two-thirds are through the press, and then I shall feel a
comparatively free man. Have you any thoughts of Southampton? (21/3.
The British Association met at Southampton in 1846.) I have some vague
idea of going there, and should much enjoy meeting you.
LETTER 22. TO J.D. HOOKER. Shrewsbury {end of February 1846}.
I came here on account of my father's health, which has been sadly
failing of late, but to my great joy he has got surprisingly better...I had not
heard of your botanical appointment (22/1. Sir Joseph was appointed
Botanist to the Geological Survey in 1846.), and am very glad of it, more
especially as it will make you travel and give you change of work and
relaxation. Will you some time have to examine the Chalk and its junction
with London Clay and Greensand? If so our house would be a good central
place, and my horse would be at your disposal. Could you not spin a long
week out of this examination? it would in truth delight us, and you could

bring your papers (like Lyell) and work at odd times. Forbes has been
writing to me about his subsidence doctrines; I wish I had heard his full
details, but I have expressed to him in my ignorance my objections, which
rest merely on its too great hypothetical basis; I shall be curious, when I
meet him, to hear what he says. He is also speculating on the gulf-weed. I
confess I cannot appreciate his reasoning about his Miocene continent, but I
daresay it is from want of knowledge.
You allude to the Sicily flora not being peculiar, and this being caused by
its recent elevation (well established) in the main part: you will find Lyell
has put forward this very clearly and well. The Apennines (which I was
somewhere lately reading about) seems a very curious case.
I think Forbes ought to allude a little to Lyell's (22/2. See Letter 19.)
work on nearly the same subject as his speculations; not that I mean that
Forbes wishes to take the smallest credit from him or any man alive; no
man, as far as I see, likes so much to give credit to others, or more soars
above the petty craving for self-celebrity.
If you come to any more conclusions about polymorphism, I should be
very glad to hear the result: it is delightful to have many points fermenting
in one's brain, and your letters and conclusions always give one plenty of
this same fermentation. I wish I could even make any return for all your
facts, views, and suggestions.
LETTER 23. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(23/1. The following extract gives the germ of what developed into an
interesting discussion in the "Origin" (Edition I., page 147). Darwin wrote,
"I suspect also that some cases of compensation which have been advanced
and likewise some other facts, may be merged under a more general
principle: namely, that natural selection is continually trying to economise
in every part of the organism." He speaks of the general belief of botanists
in compensation, but does not quote any instances.)
{September 1846}.
Have you ever thought of G. St. Hilaire's "loi de balancement" (23/2.
According to Darwin ("Variation of Animals and Plants," 2nd edition, II.,
page 335) the law of balancement was propounded by Goethe and Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) nearly at the same time, but he gives no reference
to the works of these authors. It appears, however, from his son Isidore's
"Vie, Travaux etc., d'Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire," Paris 1847, page 214,

that the law was given in his "Philosophie Anatomique," of which the first
part was published in 1818. Darwin (ibid.) gives some instances of the law
holding good in plants.), as applied to plants? I am well aware that some
zoologists quite reject it, but it certainly appears to me that it often holds
good with animals. You are no doubt aware of the kind of facts I refer to,
such as great development of canines in the carnivora apparently causing a
diminution—a compensation or balancement—in the small size of
premolars, etc. I have incidentally noticed some analogous remarks on
plants, but have never seen it discussed by botanists. Can you think of cases
in any one species in genus, or genus in family, with certain parts extra
developed, and some adjoining parts reduced? In varieties of the same
species double flowers and large fruits seem something of this—want of
pollen and of seeds balancing with the increased number of petals and
development of fruit. I hope we shall see you here this autumn.
(24/1. In this year (1847) Darwin wrote a short review of Waterhouse's
"Natural History of the Mammalia," of which the first volume had
appeared. It was published in "The Annals and Magazine of Natural
History," Volume XIX., page 53. The following sentence is the only one
which shows even a trace of evolution: "whether we view classification as a
mere contrivance to convey much information in a single word, or as
something more than a memoria technica, and as connected with the laws of
creation, we cannot doubt that where such important differences in the
generative and cerebral systems, as distinguish the Marsupiata from the
Placentata, run through two series of animals, they ought to be arranged
under heads of equal value."
A characteristic remark occurs in reference to Geographical Distribution,
"that noble subject of which we as yet but dimly see the full bearing."
The following letter seems to be of sufficient interest to be published in
spite of the obscurities caused by the want of date. It seems to have been
written after 1847, in which year a dispute involving Dr. King and several
"arctic gentlemen" was carried on in the "Athenaeum." Mr. Darwin speaks
of "Natural History Instructions for the present expedition." This may
possibly refer to the "Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry" (1849), for it
is clear, from the prefatory memorandum of the Lords of the Admiralty, that
they believed the manual would be of use in the forthcoming expeditions in
search of Sir John Franklin.)

LETTER 24. TO E. CRESY.
(24/2. Mr. Cresy was, we believe, an architect: his friendship with Mr.
Darwin dates from the settlement at Down.)
Down {after 1847}.
Although I have never particularly attended to the points in dispute
between Dr. (Richard) King and the other Arctic gentlemen, yet I have
carefully read all the articles in the "Athenaeum," and took from them much
the same impression as you convey in your letter, for which I thank you. I
believe that old sinner, Sir J. Barrow (24/3. Sir John Barrow, (1764-1848):
Secretary to the Admiralty. has been at the bottom of all the money wasted
over the naval expeditions. So strongly have I felt on this subject, that,
when I was appointed on a committee for Nat. Hist. instructions for the
present expedition, had I been able to attend I had resolved to express my
opinion on the little advantage, comparatively to the expense, gained by
them. There have been, I believe, from the beginning eighteen expeditions;
this strikes me as monstrous, considering how little is known, for instance,
on the interior of Australia. The country has paid dear for Sir John's
hobbyhorse. I have very little doubt that Dr. King is quite right in the
advantage of land expeditions as far as geography is concerned; and that is
now the chief object. (24/4. This sentence would imply that Darwin thought
it hopeless to rescue Sir J. Franklin's expedition. If so, the letter must be, at
least, as late as 1850. If the eighteen expeditions mentioned above are
"search expeditions," it would also bring the date of the letter to 1850.)
LETTER 25. TO RICHARD OWEN. Down {March 26th, 1848}.
My dear Owen
I do not know whether your MS. instructions are sent in; but even if they
are not sent in, I daresay what I am going to write will be absolutely
superfluous (25/1. The results of Mr. Darwin's experience given in the
above letter were embodied by Prof. Owen in the section "On the Use of the
Microscope on Board Ship," forming part of the article "Zoology" in the
"Manual of Scientific Enquiry, Prepared for the Use of Her Majesty's Navy"
(London, 1849).), but I have derived such infinitely great advantage from
my new simple microscope, in comparison with the one which I used on
board the "Beagle," and which was recommended to me by R. Brown ("Life
and Letters," I., page 145.), that I cannot forego the mere chance of
advantage of urging this on you. The leading point of difference consists

simply in having the stage for saucers very large and fixed. Mine will hold a
saucer three inches in inside diameter. I have never seen such a microscope
as mine, though Chevalier's (from whose plan many points of mine are
taken), of Paris, approaches it pretty closely. I fully appreciate the utter
ABSURDITY of my giving you advice about means of dissecting; but I
have appreciated myself the enormous disadvantage of having worked with
a bad instrument, though thought a few years since the best. Please to
observe that without you call especial attention to this point, those ignorant
of Natural History will be sure to get one of the fiddling instruments sold in
shops. If you thought fit, I would point out the differences, which, from my
experience, make a useful microscope for the kind of dissection of the
invertebrates which a person would be likely to attempt on board a vessel.
But pray again believe that I feel the absurdity of this letter, and I write
merely from the chance of yourself, possessing great skill and having
worked with good instruments, {not being} possibly fully aware what an
astonishing difference the kind of microscope makes for those who have not
been trained in skill for dissection under water. When next I come to town
(I was prevented last time by illness) I must call on you, and report, for my
own satisfaction, a really (I think) curious point I have made out in my
beloved barnacles. You cannot tell how much I enjoyed my talk with you
here.
Ever, my dear Owen, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.
P.S.—If I do not hear, I shall understand that my letter is superfluous.
Smith and Beck were so pleased with the simple microscope they made for
me, that they have made another as a model. If you are consulted by any
young naturalists, do recommend them to look at this. I really feel quite a
personal gratitude to this form of microscope, and quite a hatred to my old
one.
LETTER 26. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down {April 1st, 1848.}
Thank you for your note and giving me a chance of seeing you in town;
but it was out of my power to take advantage of it, for I had previously
arranged to go up to London on Monday. I should have much enjoyed
seeing you. Thanks also for your address (26/1. An introductory lecture
delivered in March 1848 at the first meeting of a Society "for giving
instructions to the working classes in Ipswich in various branches of
science, and more especially in natural history" ("Memoir of the Rev. J.S.

Henslow," by Leonard Jenyns, page 150.), which I like very much. The
anecdote about Whewell and the tides I had utterly forgotten; I believe it is
near enough to the truth. I rather demur to one sentence of yours—viz.,
"However delightful any scientific pursuit may be, yet, if it should be
wholly unapplied, it is of no more use than building castles in the air."
Would not your hearers infer from this that the practical use of each
scientific discovery ought to be immediate and obvious to make it worthy
of admiration? What a beautiful instance chloroform is of a discovery made
from purely scientific researches, afterwards coming almost by chance into
practical use! For myself I would, however, take higher ground, for I
believe there exists, and I feel within me, an instinct for truth, or knowledge
or discovery, of something of the same nature as the instinct of virtue, and
that our having such an instinct is reason enough for scientific researches
without any practical results ever ensuing from them. You will wonder what
makes me run on so, but I have been working very hard for the last eighteen
months on the anatomy, etc., of the Cirripedia (on which I shall publish a
monograph), and some of my friends laugh at me, and I fear the study of the
Cirripedia will ever remain "wholly unapplied," and yet I feel that such
study is better than castle-building.
LETTER 27. TO J.D. HOOKER, at Dr. Falconer's, Botanic Garden,
Calcutta. Down, May 10th, 1848.
I was indeed delighted to see your handwriting; but I felt almost sorry
when I beheld how long a letter you had written. I know that you are
indomitable in work, but remember how precious your time is, and do not
waste it on your friends, however much pleasure you may give them. Such
a letter would have cost me half-a-day's work. How capitally you seem
going on! I do envy you the sight of all the glorious vegetation. I am much
pleased and surprised that you have been able to observe so much in the
animal world. No doubt you keep a journal, and an excellent one it will be,
I am sure, when published. All these animal facts will tell capitally in it. I
can quite comprehend the difficulty you mention about not knowing what is
known zoologically in India; but facts observed, as you will observe them,
are none the worse for reiterating. Did you see Mr. Blyth in Calcutta? He
would be a capital man to tell you what is known about Indian Zoology, at
least in the Vertebrata. He is a very clever, odd, wild fellow, who will never
do what he could do, from not sticking to any one subject. By the way, if
you should see him at any time, try not to forget to remember me very

kindly to him; I liked all I saw of him. Your letter was the very one to charm
me, with all its facts for my Species-book, and truly obliged I am for so
kind a remembrance of me. Do not forget to make enquiries about the
origin, even if only traditionally known, of any varieties of domestic
quadrupeds, birds, silkworms, etc. Are there domestic bees? if so hives
ought to be brought home. Of all the facts you mention, that of the wild
{illegible}, when breeding with the domestic, producing offspring
somewhat sterile, is the most surprising: surely they must be different
species. Most zoologists would absolutely disbelieve such a statement, and
consider the result as a proof that they were distinct species. I do not go so
far as that, but the case seems highly improbable. Blyth has studied the
Indian Ruminantia. I have been much struck about what you say of lowland
plants ascending mountains, but the alpine not descending. How I do hope
you will get up some mountains in Borneo; how curious the result will be!
By the way, I never heard from you what affinity the Maldive flora has,
which is cruel, as you tempted me by making me guess. I sometimes groan
over your Indian journey, when I think over all your locked up riches. When
shall I see a memoir on Insular floras, and on the Pacific? What a grand
subject Alpine floras of the world (27/1. Mr. William Botting Hemsley,
F.R.S., of the Royal Gardens, Kew, is now engaged on a monograph of the
high-level Alpine plants of the world.) would be, as far as known; and then
you have never given a coup d'oeil on the similarity and dissimilarity of
Arctic and Antarctic floras. Well, thank heavens, when you do come back
you will be nolens volens a fixture. I am particularly glad you have been at
the Coal; I have often since you went gone on maundering on the subject,
and I shall never rest easy in Down churchyard without the problem be
solved by some one before I die. Talking of dying makes me tell you that
my confounded stomach is much the same; indeed, of late has been rather
worse, but for the last year, I think, I have been able to do more work. I
have done nothing besides the barnacles, except, indeed, a little theoretical
paper on erratic boulders (27/2. "On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders
from a Lower to a Higher Level" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume IV.,
pages 315-23. 1848). In this paper Darwin favours the view that the
transport of boulders was effected by coast-ice. An earlier paper entitled
"Notes on the Effects produced by the ancient Glaciers of Caernarvonshire,
and on the Boulders transported by floating Ice" ("Phil. Mag." 1842, page
352) is spoken of by Sir Archibald Geikie as standing "almost at the top of

the long list of English contributions to the history of the Ice Age" ("Charles
Darwin," "Nature" Series, page 23).), and Scientific Geological Instructions
for the Admiralty Volume (27/3. "A manual of Scientific Enquiry, prepared
for the use of Her Majesty's Navy, and adapted for Travellers in General."
Edited by Sir John F.W. Herschel, Bart. Section VI.—Geology—by Charles
Darwin. London, 1849. See "Life and Letters," pages 328-9.), which cost
me some trouble. This work, which is edited by Sir J. Herschel, is a very
good job, inasmuch as the captains of men-of-war will now see that the
Admiralty cares for science, and so will favour naturalists on board. As for
a man who is not scientific by nature, I do not believe instructions will do
him any good; and if he be scientific and good for anything the instructions
will be superfluous. I do not know who does the Botany; Owen does the
Zoology, and I have sent him an account of my new simple microscope,
which I consider perfect, even better than yours by Chevalier. N.B. I have
got a 1/8 inch object-glass, and it is grand. I have been getting on well with
my beloved Cirripedia, and get more skilful in dissection. I have worked
out the nervous system pretty well in several genera, and made out their
ears and nostrils (27/4. For the olfactory sacs see Darwin's "Monograph of
the Cirripedia," 1851, page 52.), which were quite unknown. I have lately
got a bisexual cirripede, the male being microscopically small and parasitic
within the sack of the female. I tell you this to boast of my species theory,
for the nearest closely allied genus to it is, as usual, hermaphrodite, but I
had observed some minute parasites adhering to it, and these parasites I
now can show are supplemental males, the male organs in the
hermaphrodite being unusually small, though perfect and containing
zoosperms: so we have almost a polygamous animal, simple females alone
being wanting. I never should have made this out, had not my species
theory convinced me, that an hermaphrodite species must pass into a
bisexual species by insensibly small stages; and here we have it, for the
male organs in the hermaphrodite are beginning to fail, and independent
males ready formed. But I can hardly explain what I mean, and you will
perhaps wish my barnacles and species theory al Diavolo together. But I
don't care what you say, my species theory is all gospel. We have had only
one party here: viz., of the Lyells, Forbes, Owen, and Ramsay, and we both
missed you and Falconer very much...I know more of your history than you
will suppose, for Miss Henslow most good-naturedly sent me a packet of
your letters, and she wrote me so nice a little note that it made me quite

proud. I have not heard of anything in the scientific line which would
interest you. Sir H. De la Beche (27/5. The Presidential Address delivered
by De la Beche before the Geological Society in 1848 ("Quart. Journ. Geol.
Soc." Volume IV., "Proceedings," page xxi, 1848).) gave a very long and
rather dull address; the most interesting part was from Sir J. Ross. Mr.
Beete Jukes figured in it very prominently: it really is a very nice quality in
Sir Henry, the manner in which he pushes forward his subordinates. Jukes
has since read what was considered a very valuable paper. The man, not
content with moustaches, now sports an entire beard, and I am sure thinks
himself like Jupiter tonans. There was a short time since a not very
creditable discussion at a meeting of the Royal Society, where Owen fell
foul of Mantell with fury and contempt about belemnites. What wretched
doings come from the order of fame; the love of truth alone would never
make one man attack another bitterly. My paper is full, so I must wish you
with all my heart farewell. Heaven grant that your health may keep good.
LETTER 28. TO J.S. HENSLOW. The Lodge, Malvern, May 6th, 1849.
Your kind note has been forwarded to me here. You will be surprised to
hear that we all—children, servants, and all—have been here for nearly two
months. All last autumn and winter my health grew worse and worse:
incessant sickness, tremulous hands, and swimming head. I thought I was
going the way of all flesh. Having heard of much success in some cases
from the cold-water cure, I determined to give up all attempts to do
anything and come here and put myself under Dr. Gully. It has answered to
a considerable extent: my sickness much checked and considerable strength
gained. Dr. G., moreover (and I hear he rarely speaks confidently), tells me
he has little doubt but that he can cure me in the course of time—time,
however, it will take. I have experienced enough to feel sure that the cold-
water cure is a great and powerful agent and upsetter of all constitutional
habits. Talking of habits, the cruel wretch has made me leave off snuff—
that chief solace of life. We thank you most sincerely for your prompt and
early invitation to Hitcham for the British Association for 1850 (28/1. The
invitation was probably not for 1850, but for 1851, when the Association
met at Ipswich.): if I am made well and strong, most gladly will I accept it;
but as I have been hitherto, a drive every day of half a dozen miles would
be more than I could stand with attending any of the sections. I intend going
to Birmingham (28/2. The Association met at Birmingham in 1849.) if able;
indeed, I am bound to attempt it, for I am honoured beyond all measure in

being one of the Vice-Presidents. I am uncommonly glad you will be there;
I fear, however, we shall not have any such charming trips as Nuneham and
Dropmore. (28/3. In a letter to Hooker (October 12th, 1849) Darwin speaks
of "that heavenly day at Dropmore." ("Life and Letters," I., page 379.)) We
shall stay here till at least June 1st, perhaps till July 1st; and I shall have to
go on with the aqueous treatment at home for several more months. One
most singular effect of the treatment is that it induces in most people, and
eminently in my case, the most complete stagnation of mind. I have ceased
to think even of barnacles! I heard some time since from Hooker...How
capitally he seems to have succeeded in all his enterprises! You must be
very busy now. I happened to be thinking the other day over the Gamlingay
trip to the Lilies of the Valley (28/4. The Lily of the Valley (Convallaria
majalis) is recorded from Gamlingay by Professor Babington in his "Flora
of Cambridgeshire," page 234. (London, 1860.)): ah, those were delightful
days when one had no such organ as a stomach, only a mouth and the
masticating appurtenances. I am very much surprised at what you say, that
men are beginning to work in earnest {at} Botany. What a loss it will be for
Natural History that you have ceased to reside all the year in Cambridge!
LETTER 29. TO J.F. ROYLE. Down, September 1st {184-?}.
I return you with very many thanks your valuable work. I am sure I have
not lost any slip or disarranged the loose numbers. I have been interested by
looking through the volumes, though I have not found quite so much as I
had thought possible about the varieties of the Indian domestic animals and
plants, and the attempts at introduction have been too recent for the effects
(if any) of climate to have been developed. I have, however, been
astonished and delighted at the evidence of the energetic attempts to do
good by such numbers of people, and most of them evidently not personally
interested in the result. Long may our rule flourish in India. I declare all the
labour shown in these transactions is enough by itself to make one proud of
one's countrymen...
LETTER 30. TO HUGH STRICKLAND.
(30/1. The first paragraph of this letter is published in the "Life and
Letters," I., page 372, as part of a series of letters to Strickland, beginning at
page 365, where a biographical note by Professor Newton is also given.
Professor Newton wrote: "In 1841 he brought the subject of Natural History
Nomenclature before the British Association, and prepared the code of rules

for Zoological Nomenclature, now known by his name—the principles of
which are very generally accepted." Mr. Darwin's reasons against
appending the describer's name to that of the species are given in "Life and
Letters," page 366. The present letter is of interest as giving additional
details in regard to Darwin's difficulties.)
Down, February 10th {1849}.
I have again to thank you cordially for your letter. Your remarks shall
fructify to some extent, and I will try to be more faithful to rigid virtue and
priority; but as for calling Balanus "Lepas" (which I did not think of) I
cannot do it, my pen won't write it—it is impossible. I have great hopes
some of my difficulties will disappear, owing to wrong dates in Agassiz and
to my having to run several genera into one; for I have as yet gone, in but
few cases, to original sources. With respect to adopting my own notions in
my Cirripedia book, I should not like to do so without I found others
approved, and in some public way; nor indeed is it well adapted, as I can
never recognise a species without I have the original specimen, which
fortunately I have in many cases in the British Museum. Thus far I mean to
adopt my notion, in never putting mihi or Darwin after my own species, and
in the anatomical text giving no authors' names at all, as the systematic part
will serve for those who want to know the history of the species as far as I
can imperfectly work it out.
I have had a note from W. Thompson (30/2. Mr. Thompson is described
in the preface to the Lepadidae as "the distinguished Natural Historian of
Ireland.") this morning, and he tells me Ogleby has some scheme identical
almost with mine. I feel pretty sure there is a growing general aversion to
the appendage of author's name, except in cases where necessary. Now at
this moment I have seen specimens ticketed with a specific name and no
reference—such are hopelessly inconvenient; but I declare I would rather
(as saving time) have a reference to some second systematic work than to
the original author, for I have cases of this which hardly help me at all, for I
know not where to look amongst endless periodical foreign papers. On the
other hand, one can get hold of most systematic works and so follow up the
scent, and a species does not long lie buried exclusively in a paper.
I thank you sincerely for your very kind offer of occasionally assisting
me with your opinion, and I will not trespass much. I have a case, but {it is
one} about which I am almost sure; and so to save you writing, if I

conclude rightly, pray do not answer, and I shall understand silence as
assent.
Olfers in 1814 made Lepas aurita Linn. into the genus Conchoderma;
{Oken} in 1815 gave the name Branta to Lepas aurita and vittata, and by so
doing he alters essentially Olfers' generic definition. Oken was right (as it
turns out), and Lepas aurita and vittata must form together one genus. (30/3.
In the "Monograph on the Cirripedia" (Lepadidae) the names used are
Conchoderma aurita and virgata.) (I leave out of question a multitude of
subsequent synonyms.) Now I suppose I must retain Conchoderma of
Olfers. I cannot make out a precise rule in the "British Association Report"
for this. When a genus is cut into two I see that the old name is retained for
part and altered to it; so I suppose the definition may be enlarged to receive
another species—though the cases are somewhat different. I should have
had no doubt if Lepas aurita and vittata had been made into two genera, for
then when run together the oldest of the two would have been retained.
Certainly to put Conchoderma Olfers is not quite correct when applied to
the two species, for such was not Olfers' definition and opinion. If I do not
hear, I shall retain Conchoderma for the two species...
P.S.—Will you by silence give consent to the following?
Linnaeus gives no type to his genus Lepas, though L. balanus comes first.
Several oldish authors have used Lepas exclusively for the pedunculate
division, and the name has been given to the family and compounded in
sub-generic names. Now, this shows that old authors attached the name
Lepas more particularly to the pedunculate division. Now, if I were to use
Lepas for Anatifera (30/4. Anatifera and Anatifa were used as generic
names for what Linnaeus and Darwin called Lepas anatifera.) I should get
rid of the difficulty of the second edition of Hill and of the difficulty of
Anatifera vel Anatifa. Linnaeus's generic description is equally applicable
to Anatifera and Balanus, though the latter stands first. Must the mere
precedence rigorously outweigh the apparent opinion of many old
naturalists? As for using Lepas in place of Balanus, I cannot. Every one will
understand what is meant by Lepas Anatifera, so that convenience would be
wonderfully thus suited. If I do not hear, I shall understand I have your
consent.
LETTER 31. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(31/1. In the "Life and Letters," I., page 392, is a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker
from Mr. Darwin, to whom the former had dedicated his "Himalayan
Journals." Mr. Darwin there wrote: "Your letter, received this morning, has
interested me extremely, and I thank you sincerely for telling me your old
thoughts and aspirations." The following is the letter referred to, which at
our request Sir Joseph has allowed us to publish.)
Kew, March 1st, 1854.
Now that my book (31/2. "Himalayan Journals," 2 volumes. London,
1854.) has been publicly acknowledged to be of some value, I feel bold to
write to you; for, to tell you the truth, I have never been without a misgiving
that the dedication might prove a very bad compliment, however kindly I
knew you would receive it. The idea of the dedication has been present to
me from a very early date: it was formed during the Antarctic voyage, out
of love for your own "Journal," and has never deserted me since; nor would
it, I think, had I never known more of you than by report and as the author
of the said "Naturalist's Journal." Short of the gratification I felt in getting
the book out, I know no greater than your kind, hearty acceptation of the
dedication; and, had the reviewers gibbeted me, the dedication would alone
have given me real pain. I have no wish to assume a stoical indifference to
public opinion, for I am well alive to it, and the critics might have irritated
me sorely, but they could never have caused me the regret that the
association of your name with a bad book of mine would have.
You will laugh when I tell you that, my book out, I feel past the meridian
of life! But you do not know how from my earliest childhood I nourished
and cherished the desire to make a creditable journey in a new country, and
write such a respectable account of its natural features as should give me a
niche amongst the scientific explorers of the globe I inhabit, and hand my
name down as a useful contributor of original matter. A combination of
most rare advantages has enabled me to gain as much of my object as
contents me, for I never wished to be greatest amongst you, nor did rivalry
ever enter my thoughts. No ulterior object has ever been present to me in
this pursuit. My ambition is fully gratified by the satisfactory completion of
my task, and I am now happy to go on jog-trot at Botany till the end of my
days—downhill, in one sense, all the way. I shall never have such another
object to work for, nor shall I feel the want of it...As it is, the craving of
thirty years is satisfied, and I now look back on life in a way I never could

previously. There never was a past hitherto to me. The phantom was always
in view; mayhap it is only a "ridiculus mus" after all, but it is big enough
for me...
(PLATE: T.H. HUXLEY, 1857. Maull & Polyblank photo., Walker &
Cockerell ph. sc.)
(32/1. The story of Huxley's life has been fully given in the interesting
biography edited by Mr. Leonard Huxley. (32/2. "Life and Letters of
Thomas Henry Huxley." London 1900.) Readers of this book and of the
"Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" gain an insight into the relationship
between this pair of friends to which any words of ours can add but little.
Darwin realised to the full the essential strength of Mr. Huxley's nature; he
knew, as all the world now knows, the delicate sense of honour of his
friend, and he was ever inclined to lean on his guidance in practical matters,
as on an elder brother. Of Mr. Huxley's dialectical and literary skill he was
an enthusiastic admirer, and he never forgot what his theories owed to the
fighting powers of his "general agent." (32/3. Ibid., I., page 171.) Huxley's
estimate of Darwin is very interesting: he valued him most highly for what
was so strikingly characteristic of himself—the love of truth. He spoke of
finding in him "something bigger than ordinary humanity—an unequalled
simplicity and directness of purpose—a sublime unselfishness." (32/4. Ibid.,
II., page 94. Huxley is speaking of Gordon's death, and goes on: "Of all the
people whom I have met with in my life, he and Darwin are the two in
whom I have found," etc.) The same point of view comes out in Huxley's
estimate of Darwin's mental power. (32/5. Ibid., II., page 39.) "He had a
clear, rapid intelligence, a great memory, a vivid imagination, and what
made his greatness was the strict subordination of all these to his love of
truth." This, as an analysis of Darwin's mental equipment, seems to us
incomplete, though we do not pretend to mend it. We do not think it is
possible to dissect and label the complex qualities which go to make up that
which we all recognise as genius. But, if we may venture to criticise, we
would say that Mr. Huxley's words do not seem to cover that supreme
power of seeing and thinking what the rest of the world had overlooked,
which was one of Darwin's most striking characteristics. As throwing light
on the quality of their friendship, we give below a letter which has already
appeared in the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," I., page 366. Mr. L.
Huxley gives an account of the breakdown in health which convinced
Huxley's friends that rest and relief from anxiety must be found for him. Mr.

L. Huxley aptly remarks of the letter, "It is difficult to say whether it does
more honour to him who sent it or to him who received it." (32/6. Huxley's
"Life," I., page 366. Mr. Darwin left to Mr. Huxley a legacy of 1,000
pounds, "as a slight memorial of my lifelong affection and respect for
him."))
LETTER 32. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 23rd, 1873.
My dear Huxley
I have been asked by some of your friends (eighteen in number) to
inform you that they have placed, through Robarts, Lubbock & Co., the
sum of 2,100 pounds to your account at your bankers. We have done this to
enable you to get such complete rest as you may require for the re-
establishment of your health; and in doing this we are convinced that we act
for the public interest, as well as in accordance with our most earnest
desires. Let me assure you that we are all your warm personal friends, and
that there is not a stranger or mere acquaintance amongst us. If you could
have heard what was said, or could have read what was, as I believe, our
inmost thoughts, you would know that we all feel towards you, as we
should to an honoured and much loved brother. I am sure that you will
return this feeling, and will therefore be glad to give us the opportunity of
aiding you in some degree, as this will be a happiness to us to the last day
of our lives. Let me add that our plan occurred to several of your friends at
nearly the same time and quite independently of one another.
My dear Huxley, Your affectionate friend, CHARLES DARWIN.
LETTER 33. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(33/1. The following letter is one of the earliest of the long series
addressed to Mr. Huxley.)
Down, April 23rd {1854}.
My dear Sir
I have got out all the specimens, which I have thought could by any
possibility be of any use to you; but I have not looked at them, and know
not what state they are in, but should be much pleased if they are of the
smallest use to you. I enclose a catalogue of habitats: I thought my notes
would have turned out of more use. I have copied out such few points as
perhaps would not be apparent in preserved specimens. The bottle shall go
to Mr. Gray on Thursday next by our weekly carrier.

I am very much obliged for your paper on the Mollusca (33/2. The paper
of Huxley's is "On the Morphology of the Cephalous Mollusca, etc." ("Phil.
Trans. R. Soc." Volume 143, Part I., 1853, page 29.)); I have read it all with
much interest: but it would be ridiculous in me to make any remarks on a
subject on which I am so utterly ignorant; but I can see its high importance.
The discovery of the type or "idea" (33/3. Huxley defines his use of the
word "archetype" at page 50: "All that I mean is the conception of a form
embodying the most general propositions that can be affirmed respecting
the Cephalous Mollusca, standing in the same relation to them as the
diagram to a geometrical theorem, and like it, at once, imaginary and true.")
(in your sense, for I detest the word as used by Owen, Agassiz & Co.) of
each great class, I cannot doubt, is one of the very highest ends of Natural
History; and certainly most interesting to the worker-out. Several of your
remarks have interested me: I am, however, surprised at what you say
versus "anamorphism" (33/4. The passage referred to is at page 63: "If,
however, all Cephalous Mollusks...be only modifications by excess or
defect of the parts of a definite archetype, then, I think, it follows as a
necessary consequence, that no anamorphism takes place in this group.
There is no progression from a lower to a higher type, but merely a more or
less complete evolution of one type." Huxley seems to use the term
anamorphism in a sense differing from that of some writers. Thus in
Jourdan's "Dictionnaire des Termes Usites dans les Sciences Naturelles,"
1834, it is defined as the production of an atypical form either by arrest or
excess of development.), I should have thought that the archetype in
imagination was always in some degree embryonic, and therefore capable
{of} and generally undergoing further development.
Is it not an extraordinary fact, the great difference in position of the heart
in different species of Cleodora? (33/5. A genus of Pteropods.) I am a
believer that when any part, usually constant, differs considerably in
different allied species that it will be found in some degree variable within
the limits of the same species. Thus, I should expect that if great numbers of
specimens of some of the species of Cleodora had been examined with this
object in view, the position of the heart in some of the species would have
been found variable. Can you aid me with any analogous facts?
I am very much pleased to hear that you have not given up the idea of
noticing my cirripedial volume. All that I have seen since confirms
everything of any importance stated in that volume—more especially I have

been able rigorously to confirm in an anomalous species, by the clearest
evidence, that the actual cellular contents of the ovarian tubes, by the gland-
like action of a modified portion of the continuous tube, passes into the
cementing stuff: in fact cirripedes make glue out of their own unformed
eggs! (33/6. On Darwin's mistake in this point see "Life and Letters," III.,
page 2.)
Pray believe me, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.
I told the above case to Milne Edwards, and I saw he did not place the
smallest belief in it.
LETTER 34. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 2nd, {1854}.
My second volume on the everlasting barnacles is at last published (34/1.
"A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia. II. The Balanidae, the
Verrucidae." Ray Society, 1854.), and I will do myself the pleasure of
sending you a copy to Jermyn Street next Thursday, as I have to send
another book then to Mr. Baily.
And now I want to ask you a favour—namely, to answer me two
questions. As you are so perfectly familiar with the doings, etc., of all
Continental naturalists, I want you to tell me a few names of those whom
you think would care for my volume. I do not mean in the light of puffing
my book, but I want not to send copies to those who from other studies,
age, etc., would view it as waste paper. From assistance rendered me, I
consider myself bound to send copies to: (1) Bosquet of Maestricht, (2)
Milne Edwards, (3) Dana, (4) Agassiz, (5) Muller, (6) W. Dunker of Hesse
Cassel. Now I have five or six other copies to distribute, and will you be so
very kind as to help me? I had thought of Von Siebold, Loven, d'Orbigny,
Kolliker, Sars, Kroyer, etc., but I know hardly anything about any of them.
My second question, it is merely a chance whether you can answer,—it is
whether I can send these books or any of them (in some cases accompanied
by specimens), through the Royal Society: I have some vague idea of
having heard that the Royal Society did sometimes thus assist members.
I have just been reading your review of the "Vestiges" (34/2. In his
chapter on the "Reception of the Origin of Species" ("Life and Letters," II.,
pages 188-9), Mr. Huxley wrote: "and the only review I ever have qualms
of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one I wrote on
the 'Vestiges.'" The article is in the "British and Foreign Medico-chirurgical
Review," XIII., 1854, page 425. The "great man" referred to below is

Owen: see Huxley's review, page 439, and Huxley's "Life." I., page 94.),
and the way you handle a great Professor is really exquisite and inimitable.
I have been extremely interested in other parts, and to my mind it is
incomparably the best review I have read on the "Vestiges"; but I cannot
think but that you are rather hard on the poor author. I must think that such
a book, if it does no other good, spreads the taste for Natural Science.
But I am perhaps no fair judge, for I am almost as unorthodox about
species as the "Vestiges" itself, though I hope not quite so unphilosophical.
How capitally you analyse his notion about law. I do not know when I have
read a review which interested me so much. By Heavens, how the blood
must have gushed into the capillaries when a certain great man (whom with
all his faults I cannot help liking) read it!
I am rather sorry you do not think more of Agassiz's embryological
stages (34/3. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 310: also Letter 40, Note.), for
though I saw how exceedingly weak the evidence was, I was led to hope in
its truth.
LETTER 35. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1854}.
With respect to "highness" and "lowness," my ideas are only eclectic and
not very clear. It appears to me that an unavoidable wish to compare all
animals with men, as supreme, causes some confusion; and I think that
nothing besides some such vague comparison is intended, or perhaps is
even possible, when the question is whether two kingdoms such as the
Articulata or Mollusca are the highest. Within the same kingdom I am
inclined to think that "highest" usually means that form which has
undergone most "morphological differentiation" from the common embryo
or archetype of the class; but then every now and then one is bothered (as
Milne Edwards has remarked) by "retrograde development," i.e., the mature
animal having fewer and less important organs than its own embryo. The
specialisation of parts to different functions, or "the division of
physiological labour" (35/1. A slip of the pen for "physiological division of
labour.") of Milne Edwards exactly agrees (and to my mind is the best
definition, when it can be applied) with what you state is your idea in regard
to plants. I do not think zoologists agree in any definite ideas on this
subject; and my ideas are not clearer than those of my brethren.
LETTER 36. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 2nd {1854}.

I have had the house full of visitors, and when I talk I can do absolutely
nothing else; and since then I have been poorly enough, otherwise I should
have answered your letter long before this, for I enjoy extremely discussing
such points as those in your last note. But what a villain you are to heap
gratuitous insults on my ELASTIC theory: you might as well call the virtue
of a lady elastic, as the virtue of a theory accommodating in its favours.
Whatever you may say, I feel that my theory does give me some advantages
in discussing these points. But to business: I keep my notes in such a way,
viz., in bulk, that I cannot possibly lay my hand on any reference; nor as far
as the vegetable kingdom is concerned do I distinctly remember having read
any discussion on general highness or lowness, excepting Schleiden (I
fancy) on Compositae being highest. Ad. de Jussieu (36/1. "Monographie
de la Famille des Malpighiacees," by Adrien de Jussieu, "Arch. du
Museum." Volume III., page 1, 1843.), in "Arch. du Museum," Tome 3,
discusses the value of characters of degraded flowers in the Malpighiaceae,
but I doubt whether this at all concerns you. Mirbel somewhere has
discussed some such question.
Plants lie under an enormous disadvantage in respect to such discussions
in not passing through larval stages. I do not know whether you can
distinguish a plant low from non-development from one low from
degradation, which theoretically, at least, are very distinct. I must agree
with Forbes that a mollusc may be higher than one articulate animal and
lower than another; if one was asked which was highest as a whole, the
Molluscan or Articulate Kingdom, I should look to and compare the highest
in each, and not compare their archetypes (supposing them to be known,
which they are not.)
But there are, in my opinion, more difficult cases than any we have
alluded to, viz., that of fish—but my ideas are not clear enough, and I do
not suppose you would care to hear what I obscurely think on this subject.
As far as my elastic theory goes, all I care about is that very ancient
organisms (when different from existing) should tend to resemble the larval
or embryological stages of the existing.
I am glad to hear what you say about parallelism: I am an utter
disbeliever of any parallelism more than mere accident. It is very strange,
but I think Forbes is often rather fanciful; his "Polarity" (36/2. See Letter
41, Note.) makes me sick—it is like "magnetism" turning a table.

If I can think of any one likely to take your "Illustrations" (36/3.
"Illustrations of Himalayan Plants from Drawings made by J.F. Cathcart."
Folio, 1855.), I will send the advertisement. If you want to make up some
definite number so as to go to press, I will put my name down with
PLEASURE (and I hope and believe that you will trust me in saying so),
though I should not in the course of nature subscribe to any horticultural
work:—act for me.

LETTER 37. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, {May} 29th, 1854.
I am really truly sorry to hear about your {health}. I entreat you to write
down your own case,—symptoms, and habits of life,—and then consider
your case as that of a stranger; and I put it to you, whether common sense
would not order you to take more regular exercise and work your brain less.
(N.B. Take a cold bath and walk before breakfast.) I am certain in the long
run you would not lose time. Till you have a thoroughly bad stomach, you
will not know the really great evil of it, morally, physically, and every way.
Do reflect and act resolutely. Remember your troubled heart-action
formerly plainly told how your constitution was tried. But I will say no
more—excepting that a man is mad to risk health, on which everything,
including his children's inherited health, depends. Do not hate me for this
lecture. Really I am not surprised at your having some headache after
Thursday evening, for it must have been no small exertion making an
abstract of all that was said after dinner. Your being so engaged was a bore,
for there were several things that I should have liked to have talked over
with you. It was certainly a first-rate dinner, and I enjoyed it extremely, far
more than I expected. Very far from disagreeing with me, my London visits
have just lately taken to suit my stomach admirably; I begin to think that
dissipation, high-living, with lots of claret, is what I want, and what I had
during the last visit. We are going to act on this same principle, and in a
very profligate manner have just taken a pair of season-tickets to see the
Queen open the Crystal Palace. (37/1. Queen Victoria opened the Crystal
Palace at Sydenham on June 10th, 1854.) How I wish there was any chance
of your being there! The last grand thing we were at together answered, I
am sure, very well, and that was the Duke's funeral.
Have you seen Forbes' introductory lecture (37/2. Edward Forbes was
appointed to a Professorship at Edinburgh in May, 1854.) in the "Scotsman"
(lent me by Horner)? it is really ADMIRABLY done, though without
anything, perhaps, very original, which could hardly be expected: it has
given me even a higher opinion than I before had, of the variety and polish
of his intellect. It is, indeed, an irreparable loss to London natural history
society. I wish, however, he would not praise so much that old brown dry
stick Jameson. Altogether, to my taste, it is much the best introductory
lecture I have ever read. I hear his anniversary address is very good.

Adios, my dear Hooker; do be wise and good, and be careful of your
stomach, within which, as I know full well, lie intellect, conscience, temper,
and the affections.
LETTER 38. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 2nd {1854}.
You are a pretty fellow to talk of funking the returning thanks at the
dinner for the medal. (38/1. The Royal medal was given to Sir Joseph in
1854.) I heard that it was decidedly the best speech of the evening, given
"with perfect fluency, distinctness, and command of language," and that you
showed great self-possession: was the latter the proverbially desperate
courage of a coward? But you are a pretty fellow to be so desperately afraid
and then to make the crack speech. Many such an ordeal may you have to
go through! I do not know whether Sir William {Hooker} would be
contented with Lord Rosse's (38/2. President of the Royal Society 1848-54.)
speech on giving you the medal; but I am very much pleased with it, and
really the roll of what you have done was, I think, splendid. What a great
pity he half spoiled it by not having taken the trouble just to read it over
first. Poor Hofmann (38/3. August Wilhelm Hofmann, the other medallist of
1854.) came off in this respect even worse. It is really almost arrogant
insolence against every one not an astronomer.
The next morning I was at a very pleasant breakfast party at Sir R.
Inglis's. (38/4. Sir Robert Inglis, President of the British Association in
1847. Apparently Darwin was present at the afternoon meeting, but not at
the dinner.) I have received, with very many thanks, the aberrant genera; but
I have not had time to consider them, nor your remarks on Australian
botanical geography.
LETTER 39. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(39/1. The following letter shows Darwin's interest in the adjudication of
the Royal medals. The year 1855 was the last during which he served on the
Council of the Society. He had previously served in 1849-50.)
Down, March 31st, 1855.
I have thought and enquired much about Westwood, and I really think he
amply deserves the gold medal. But should you think of some one with
higher claim I am quite ready to give up. Indeed, I suppose without I get
some one to second it, I cannot propose him.

Will you be so kind as to read the enclosed, and return it to me? Should I
send it to Bell? That is, without you demur or convince me. I had thought of
Hancock, a higher class of labourer; but, as far as I can weigh, he has not,
as yet, done so much as Westwood. I may state that I read the whole
"Classification" (39/2. Possibly Westwood's "Introduction to the Modern
Classification of Insects" (1839).) before I was on the Council, and ever
thought on the subject of medals. I fear my remarks are rather lengthy, but
to do him justice I could not well shorten them. Pray tell me frankly
whether the enclosed is the right sort of thing, for though I was once on the
Council of the Royal, I never attended any meetings, owing to bad health.
With respect to the Copley medal (39/3. The Copley Medal was given to
Lyell in 1858.), I have a strong feeling that Lyell has a high claim, but as he
has had the Royal Medal I presume that it would be thought objectionable
to propose him; and as I intend (you not objecting and converting me) to
propose W. for the Royal, it would, of course, appear intolerably
presumptuous to propose for the Copley also.
LETTER 40. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 10th, 1855.
Shall you attend the Council of the Royal Society on Thursday next? I
have not been very well of late, and I doubt whether I can attend; and if I
could do anything (pray conceal the scandalous fact), I want to go to the
Crystal Palace to meet the Horners, Lyells, and a party. So I want to know
whether you will speak for me most strongly for Barrande. You know better
than I do his admirable labours on the development of trilobites, and his
most important work on his Lower or Primordial Zone. I enclose an old
note of Lyell's to show what he thinks. With respect to Dana, whom I also
proposed, you know well his merits. I can speak most highly of his
classificatory work on crustacea and his Geographical Distribution. His
Volcanic Geology is admirable, and he has done much good work on coral
reefs.
If you attend, do not answer this; but if you cannot be at the Council,
please inform me, and I suppose I must, if I can, attend.
Thank you for your abstract of your lecture at the Royal Institution,
which interested me much, and rather grieved me, for I had hoped things
had been in a slight degree otherwise. (40/1. "On certain Zoological
Arguments commonly adduced in favour of the hypothesis of the
Progressive Development of Animal Life," Discourse, Friday, April 20,

1855: "Proceedings R.I." (1855). Published also in "Huxley's Scientific
Memoirs." The lecturer dwelt chiefly on the argument of Agassiz, which he
summarises as follows: "Homocercal fishes have in their embryonic state
heterocercal tails; therefore heterocercality is, so far, a mark of an
embryonic state as compared with homocercality, and the earlier
heterocercal fish are embryonic as compared with the later homocercal." He
shows that facts do not support this view, and concludes generally "that
there is no real parallel between the successive forms assumed in the
development of the life of the individual at present and those which have
appeared at different epochs in the past.") I heard some time ago that before
long I might congratulate you on becoming a married man. (40/2. Mr.
Huxley was married July 21st, 1855.) From my own experience of some
fifteen years, I am very sure that there is nothing in this wide world which
more deserves congratulation, and most sincerely and heartily do I
congratulate you, and wish you many years of as much happiness as this
world can afford.
LETTER 41. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(41/1. The following letter illustrates Darwin's work on aberrant genera.
In the "Origin," Edition I., page 429, he wrote: "The more aberrant any
form is, the greater must be the number of connecting forms which, on my
theory, have been exterminated and utterly lost. And we have some
evidence of aberrant forms having suffered severely from extinction, for
they are generally represented by extremely few species; and such species
as do occur are generally very distinct from each other, which again implies
extinction.")
Down, November 15th {1855?}.
In Schoenherr's Catalogue of Curculionidae (41/2. "Genera et Species
Curculionidum." (C.J. Schoenherr: Paris, 1833-38.)), the 6,717 species are
on an average 10.17 to a genus. Waterhouse (who knows the group well,
and who has published on fewness of species in aberrant genera) has given
me a list of 62 aberrant genera, and these have on an average 7.6 species;
and if one single genus be removed (and which I cannot yet believe ought
to be considered aberrant), then the 61 aberrant genera would have only
4.91 species on an average. I tested these results in another way. I found in
Schoenherr 9 families, including only 11 genera, and these genera (9 of

which were in Waterhouse's list) I found included only 3.36 species on an
average.
This last result led me to Lindley's "Vegetable Kingdom," in which I
found (excluding thallogens and acrogens) that the genera include each
10.46 species (how near by chance to the Curculionidae), and I find 21
orders including single genera, and these 21 genera have on average 7.95
species; but if Lindley is right that Erythroxylon (with its 75 species) ought
to be amongst the Malpighiads, then the average would be only 4.6 per
genus.
But here comes, as it appears to me, an odd thing (I hope I shall not quite
weary you out). There are 29 other orders, each with 2 genera, and these 58
genera have on an average 15.07 species: this great number being owing to
the 10 genera in the Smilaceae, Salicaceae (with 220 species), Begoniaceae,
Balsaminaceae, Grossulariaceae, without which the remaining 48 genera
have on an average only 5.91 species.
This case of the orders with only 2 genera, the genera notwithstanding
having 15.07 species each, seems to me very perplexing and upsets, almost,
the conclusion deducible from the orders with single genera.
I have gone higher, and tested the alliances with 1, 2, and 3 orders; and in
these cases I find both the genera few in each alliance, and the species, less
than the average of the whole kingdom, in each genus.
All this has amused me, but I daresay you will have a good sneer at me,
and tell me to stick to my barnacles. By the way, you agree with me that
sometimes one gets despondent—for instance, when theory and facts will
not harmonise; but what appears to me even worse, and makes me despair,
is, when I see from the same great class of facts, men like Barrande deduce
conclusions, such as his "Colonies" (41/3. Lyell briefly refers to Barrande's
Bohemian work in a letter (August 31st, 1856) to Fleming ("Life of Sir
Charles Lyell," II., page 225): "He explained to me on the spot his
remarkable discovery of a 'colony' of Upper Silurian fossils, 3,400 feet
deep, in the midst of the Lower Silurian group. This has made a great noise,
but I think I can explain away the supposed anomaly by, etc." (See Letter
40, Note.) and his agreement with E. de Beaumont's lines of Elevation, or
such men as Forbes with his Polarity (41/4. Edward Forbes "On the
Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of Organised Beings in Time"
("Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," Volume LVII., 1854, page 332). The

author points out that "the maximum development of generic types during
the Palaeozoic period was during its earlier epochs; that during the Neozoic
period towards its later periods." Thus the two periods of activity are
conceived to be at the two opposite poles of a sphere which in some way
represents for him the system of Nature.); I have not a doubt that before
many months are over I shall be longing for the most dishonest species as
being more honest than the honestest theories. One remark more. If you feel
any interest, or can get any one else to feel any interest on the aberrant
genera question, I should think the most interesting way would be to take
aberrant genera in any great natural family, and test the average number of
species to the genera in that family.
How I wish we lived near each other! I should so like a talk with you on
geographical distribution, taken in its greatest features. I have been trying
from land productions to take a very general view of the world, and I should
so like to see how far it agrees with plants.
LETTER 42. TO MRS. LYELL.
(42/1. Mrs. Lyell is a daughter of the late Mr. Leonard Horner, and
widow of Lieut.-Col. Lyell, a brother of Sir Charles.)
Down, January 26th {1856}.
I shall be very glad to be of any sort of use to you in regard to the beetles.
But first let me thank you for your kind note and offer of specimens to my
children. My boys are all butterfly hunters; and all young and ardent
lepidopterists despise, from the bottom of their souls, coleopterists.
The simplest plan for your end and for the good of entomology, I should
think, would be to offer the collection to Dr. J.E. Gray for the British
Museum on condition that a perfect set was made out for you. If the
collection was at all valuable, I should think he would be very glad to have
this done. Whether any third set would be worth making out would depend
on the value of the collection. I do not suppose that you expect the insects
to be named, for that would be a most serious labour. If you do not approve
of this scheme, I should think it very likely that Mr. Waterhouse would
think it worth his while to set a series for you, retaining duplicates for
himself; but I say this only on a venture. You might trust Mr. Waterhouse
implicitly, which I fear, as {illegible} goes, is more than can be said for all
entomologists. I presume, if you thought of either scheme, Sir Charles Lyell

could easily see the gentlemen and arrange it; but, if not, I could do so when
next I come to town, which, however, will not be for three or four weeks.
With respect to giving your children a taste for Natural History, I will
venture one remark—viz., that giving them specimens in my opinion would
tend to destroy such taste. Youngsters must be themselves collectors to
acquire a taste; and if I had a collection of English lepidoptera, I would be
systematically most miserly, and not give my boys half a dozen butterflies
in the year. Your eldest has the brow of an observer, if there be the least
truth in phrenology. We are all better, but we have been of late a poor
household.
LETTER 43. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1855}.
I should have less scruple in troubling you if I had any confidence what
my work would turn out. Sometimes I think it will be good, at other times I
really feel as much ashamed of myself as the author of the "Vestiges" ought
to be of himself. I know well that your kindness and friendship would make
you do a great deal for me, but that is no reason that I should be
unreasonable. I cannot and ought not to forget that all your time is
employed in work certain to be valuable. It is superfluous in me to say that I
enjoy exceedingly writing to you, and that your answers are of the greatest
possible service to me. I return with many thanks the proof on Aquilegia
(43/1. This seems to refer to the discussion on the genus Aquilegia in
Hooker and Thomson's "Flora Indica," 1855, Volume I., Systematic Part,
page 44. The authors' conclusion is that "all the European and many of the
Siberian forms generally recognised belong to one very variable species."
With regard to cirripedes, Mr. Darwin spoke of "certain just perceptible
differences which blend together and constitute varieties and not species"
("Life and Letters," I., page 379).): it has interested me much. It is exactly
like my barnacles; but for my particular purpose, most unfortunately, both
Kolreuter and Gartner have worked chiefly on A. vulgaris and canadensis
and atro-purpurea, and these are just the species that you seem not to have
studied. N.B. Why do you not let me buy the Indian Flora? You are too
magnificent.
Now for a short ride on my chief (at present) hobbyhorse, viz. aberrant
genera. What you say under your remarks on Lepidodendron seems just the
case that I want, to give some sort of evidence of what we both believe in,
viz. how groups came to be anomalous or aberrant; and I think some sort of

proof is required, for I do not believe very many naturalists would at all
admit our view.
Thank you for the caution on large anomalous genera first catching
attention. I do not quite agree with your "grave objection to the whole
process," which is "that if you multiply the anomalous species by 100, and
divide the normal by the same, you will then reverse the names..." For, to
take an example, Ornithorhynchus and Echidna would not be less aberrant
if each had a dozen (I do not say 100, because we have no such cases in the
animal kingdom) species instead of one. What would really make these two
genera less anomalous would be the creation of many genera and sub-
families round and radiating from them on all sides. Thus if Australia were
destroyed, Didelphys in S. America would be wonderfully anomalous (this
is your case with Proteaceae), whereas now there are so many genera and
little sub-families of Marsupiata that the group cannot be called aberrant or
anomalous. Sagitta (and the earwig) is one of the most anomalous animals
in the world, and not a bit the less because there are a dozen species. Now,
my point (which, I think is a slightly new point of view) is, if it is extinction
which has made the genus anomalous, as a general rule the same causes of
extinction would allow the existence of only a few species in such genera.
Whenever we meet (which will be on the 23rd {at the} Club) I shall much
like to hear whether this strikes you as sound. I feel all the time on the
borders of a circle of truism. Of course I could not think of such a request,
but you might possibly:—if Bentham does not think the whole subject
rubbish, ask him some time to pick out the dozen most anomalous genera in
the Leguminosae, or any great order of which there is a monograph by
which I could calculate the ordinary percentage of species to genera. I am
the more anxious, as the more I enquire, the fewer are the cases in which it
can be done. It cannot be done in birds, or, I fear, in mammifers. I doubt
much whether in any other class of insects {other than Curculionidae}.
I saw your nice notice of poor Forbes in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and
I see in the "Athenaeum" a notice of meeting on last Saturday of his friends.
Of course I shall wish to subscribe as soon as possible to any memorial...
I have just been testing practically what disuse does in reducing parts. I
have made {skeletons} of wild and tame duck (oh the smell of well-boiled,
high duck!), and I find the tame duck ought, according to scale of wild
prototype, to have its two wings 360 grains in weight; but it has only 317,

or 43 grains too little, or 1/7 of {its} own two wings too little in weight.
This seems rather interesting to me. (43/2. On the conclusions drawn from
these researches, see Mr. Platt Ball, "The Effects of Use and Disuse"
(Nature Series), 1890, page 55. With regard to his pigeons, Darwin wrote,
in November 1855: "I love them to that extent that I cannot bear to kill and
skeletonise them.")
P.S.—I do not know whether you will think this worth reading over. I
have worked it out since writing my letter, and tabulate the whole.
21 orders with 1 genus, having 7.95 species (or 4.6?).
29 orders with 2 genera, having 15.05 species on an average.
23 orders each with 3 genera, and these genera include on an average 8.2
species.
20 orders each with 4 genera, and these genera include on an average
12.2 species.
27 orders each with above 50 genera (altogether 4716 genera), and these
genera on an average have 9.97 species.
From this I conclude, whether there be many or few genera in an order,
the number of species in a genus is not much affected; but perhaps when
{there is} only one genus in an order it will be affected, and this will
depend whether the {genus} Erythroxylon be made a family of.
LETTER 44. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 8th {1856}.
I have been particularly glad to get your splendid eloge of Lindley. His
name had been lately passing through my head, and I had hoped that Miers
would have proposed him for the Royal medal. I most entirely agree that
the Copley (44/1. The late Professor Lindley never attained the honour of
the Copley medal. The Royal medal was awarded to him in 1857.) is more
appropriate, and I daresay he would not have valued the Royal. From
skimming through many botanical books, and from often consulting the
"Vegetable Kingdom," I had (ignorant as I am) formed the highest opinion
of his claims as a botanist. If Sharpey will stick up strong for him, we
should have some chance; but the natural sciences are but feebly
represented in the Council. Sir P. Egerton, I daresay, would be strong for
him. You know Bell is out. Now, my only doubt is, and I hope that you will
consider this, that the natural sciences being weak on the Council, and (I
fancy) the most powerful man in the Council, Col. S{abine}, being strong

against Lindley, whether we should have any chance of succeeding. It
would be so easy to name some eminent man whose name would be well-
known to all the physicists. Would Lindley hear of and dislike being
proposed for the Copley and not succeeding? Would it not be better on this
view to propose him for the Royal? Do think of this. Moreover, if Lindley is
not proposed for the Royal, I fear both Royal medals would go {to}
physicists; for I, for one, should not like to propose another zoologist,
though Hancock would be a very good man, and I fancy there would be a
feeling against medals to two botanists. But for whatever Lindley is
proposed, I will do my best. We will talk this over here.
LETTER 45. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 9th {1856}.
...With respect to Huxley, I was on the point of speaking to Crawford and
Strezlecki (who will be on Committee of the Athenaeum) when I bethought
me of how Owen would look and what he would say. Cannot you fancy
him, with slow and gentle voice, asking "Will Mr. Crawford tell me what
Mr. Huxley has done, deserving this honour; I only know that he differs
from, and disputes the authority of Cuvier, Ehrenberg, and Agassiz as of no
weight at all." And when I began to tell Mr. Crawford what to say, I was
puzzled, and could refer him only to some excellent papers in the "Phil.
Trans." for which the medal had been awarded. But I doubt, with an
opposing faction, whether this would be considered enough, for I believe
real scientific merit is not thought enough, without the person is generally
well known. Now I want to hear what you deliberately think on this head: it
would be bad to get him proposed and then rejected; and Owen is very
powerful.
LETTER 46. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1856}.
I have got the Lectures, and have read them. (46/1. The reference is
presumably to the Royal Institution Lectures given in 1854-56. Those
which we have seen—namely, those reprinted in the "Scientific Memoirs,"
Volume I.—"On the Common Plan of Animal Form," page 281; "On certain
Zoological Arguments, etc." page 300; "On Natural History as Knowledge,
Discipline, and Power," page 305, do not seem to us to contain anything
likely to offend; but Falconer's attack in the "Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist."
June 1856, on the last-named lecture, shows strong feeling. A reply by Mr.
Huxley appeared in the July number of the same Journal. The most heretical
discussion from a modern standpoint is at page 311, where he asks how it is

conceivable that the bright colours of butterflies and shells or the elegant
forms of Foraminifera can possibly be of service to their possessors; and it
is this which especially struck Darwin, judging by the pencil notes on his
copy of the Lecture.) Though I believe, as far as my knowledge goes, that
Huxley is right, yet I think his tone very much too vehement, and I have
ventured to say so in a note to Huxley. I had not thought of these lectures in
relation to the Athenaeum (46/2. Mr. Huxley was in 1858 elected to the
Athenaeum Club under Rule 2, which provides for the annual election of "a
certain number of persons of distinguished eminence in science, literature,
or the arts, or for public services."), but I am inclined quite to agree with
you, and that we had better pause before anything is said...(N.B. I found
Falconer very indignant at the manner in which Huxley treated Cuvier in
his Royal Institution lectures; and I have gently told Huxley so.) I think we
had better do nothing: to try in earnest to get a great naturalist into the
Athenaeum and fail, is far worse than doing nothing.
How strange, funny, and disgraceful that nearly all (Faraday and Sir J.
Herschel at least exceptions) our great men are in quarrels in couplets; it
never struck me before...
LETTER 47. C. LYELL TO CHARLES DARWIN.
(47/1. In the "Life and Letters," II., page 72, is given a letter (June 16th,
1856) to Lyell, in which Darwin exhales his indignation over the
"extensionists" who created continents ad libitum to suit the convenience of
their theories. On page 74 a fuller statement of his views is given in a letter
dated June 25th. We have not seen Lyell's reply to this, but his reply to
Darwin's letter of June 16th is extant, and is here printed for the first time.)
53, Harley Street, London, June 17th, 1856.
I wonder you did not also mention D. Sharpe's paper (47/2. "On the Last
Elevation of the Alps, etc." ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XII., 1856,
page 102.), just published, by which the Alps were submerged as far as
9,000 feet of their present elevation above the sea in the Glacial period and
then since uplifted again. Without admitting this, you would probably
convey the alpine boulders to the Jura by marine currents, and if so, make
the Alps and Jura islands in the glacial sea. And would not the Glacial
theory, as now very generally understood, immerse as much of Europe as I
did in my original map of Europe, when I simply expressed all the area
which at some time or other had been under water since the commencement

of the Eocene period? I almost suspect the glacial submergence would
exceed it.
But would not this be a measure of the movement in every other area,
northern (arctic), antarctic, or tropical, during an equal period—oceanic or
continental? For the conversion of sea into land would always equal the
turning of much land into sea.
But all this would be done in a fraction of the Pliocene period; the
Glacial shells are barely 1 per cent. extinct species. Multiply this by the
older Pliocene and Miocene epochs.
You also forget an author who, by means of atolls, contrived to submerge
archipelagoes (or continents?), the mountains of which must originally have
differed from each other in height 8,000 (or 10,000?) feet, so that they all
just rose to the surface at one level, or their sites are marked by buoys of
coral. I could never feel sure whether he meant this tremendous catastrophe,
all brought about by what Sedgwick called "Lyell's niggling operations," to
have been effected during the era of existing species of corals. Perhaps you
can tell me, for I am really curious to know...(47/3. The author referred to is
of course Darwin.)
Now, although there is nothing in my works to warrant the building up of
continents in the Atlantic and Pacific even since the Eocene period, yet, as
some of the rocks in the central Alps are in part Eocene, I begin to think that
all continents and oceans may be chiefly, if not all, post-Eocene, and Dana's
"Atlantic Ocean" of the Lower Silurian is childish (see the Anniversary
Address, 1856). (47/4. Probably Dana's Anniversary Address to the
"American Association for the Advancement of Science," published in the
"Proceedings" 1856.) But how far you are at liberty to call up continents
from "the vasty deep" as often as you want to convey a Helix from the
United States to Europe in Miocene or Pliocene periods is a question; for
the ocean is getting deeper of late, and Haughton says the mean depth is
eleven miles! by his late paper on tides. (47/5. "On the Depth of the Sea
deducible from Tidal Observations" ("Proc. Irish Acad." Volume VI., page
354, 1853-54).) I shall be surprised if this turns out true by soundings.
I thought your mind was expanding so much in regard to time that you
would have been going ahead in regard to the possibility of mountain-
chains being created in a fraction of the period required to convert a swan
into a goose, or vice versa. Nine feet did the Rimutaka chain of New

Zealand gain in height in January, 1855, and a great earthquake has
occurred in New Zealand every seven years for half a century nearly. The
"Washingtonia" (Californian conifer) (47/6. Washingtonia, or Wellingtonia,
better known as Sequoia. Asa Gray, writing in 1872, states his belief that
"no Sequoia now alive can sensibly antedate the Christian era" ("Scientific
Papers," II., page 144).) lately exhibited was four thousand years old, so
that one individual might see a chain of hills rise, and rise with it, much
{more} a species—and those islands which J. Hooker describes as covered
with New Zealand plants three hundred (?) miles to the N.E. (?) of New
Zealand may have been separated from the mainland two or three or four
generations of Washingtonia ago.
If the identity of the land-shells of all the hundreds of British Isles be
owing to their having been united since the Glacial period, and the
discordance, almost total, of the shells of Porto Santo and Madeira be
owing to their having been separated {during} all the newer and possibly
older Pliocene periods, then it gives us a conception of time which will aid
you much in your conversion of species, if immensity of time will do all
you require; for the Glacial period is thus shown, as we might have
anticipated, to be contemptible in duration or in distance from us, as
compared to the older Pliocene, let alone the Miocene, when our
contemporary species were, though in a minority, already beginning to
flourish.
The littoral shells, according to MacAndrew, imply that Madeira and the
Canaries were once joined to the mainland of Europe or Africa, but that
those isles were disjoined so long ago that most of the species came in
since. In short, the marine shells tell the same story as the land shells. Why
do the plants of Porto Santo and Madeira agree so nearly? And why do the
shells which are the same as European or African species remain quite
unaltered, like the Crag species, which returned unchanged to the British
seas after being expelled from them by glacial cold, when two millions (?)
of years had elapsed, and after such migration to milder seas? Be so good as
to explain all this in your next letter.
LETTER 48. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 5th {1856}.
I write this morning in great tribulation about Tristan d'Acunha. (48/1.
See "Flora Antarctica," page 216. Though Tristan d'Acunha is "only 1,000
miles distant from the Cape of Good Hope, and 3,000 from the Strait of

Magalhaens, the botany of this island is far more intimately allied to that of
Fuegia than Africa.") The more I reflect on your Antarctic flora the more I
am astounded. You give all the facts so clearly and fully, that it is
impossible to help speculating on the subject; but it drives me to despair, for
I cannot gulp down your continent; and not being able to do so gives, in my
eyes, the multiple creationists an awful triumph. It is a wondrous case, and
how strange that A. De Candolle should have ignored it; which he certainly
has, as it seems to me. I wrote Lyell a long geological letter (48/2. "Life and
Letters," II., page 74.) about continents, and I have had a very long and
interesting answer; but I cannot in the least gather his opinion about all your
continental extensionists; and I have written again beseeching a verdict.
(48/3. In the tenth edition of the "Principles," 1872, Lyell added a chapter
(Chapter XLI., page 406) on insular floras and faunas in relation to the
origin of species; he here (page 410) gives his reasons against Forbes as an
extensionist.) I asked him to send to you my letter, for as it was well copied
it would not be troublesome to read; but whether worth reading I really do
not know; I have given in it the reasons which make me strongly opposed to
continental extensions.
I was very glad to get your note some days ago: I wish you would think it
worth while, as you intend to have the Laburnum case translated, to write to
"Wien" (that unknown place) (48/4. There is a tradition that Darwin once
asked Hooker where "this place Wien is, where they publish so many
books."), and find out how the Laburnum has been behaving: it really ought
to be known.
The Entada is a beast. (48/5. The large seeds of Entada scandens are
occasionally floated across the Atlantic and cast on the shores of Europe.); I
have never differed from you about the growth of a plant in a new island
being a FAR harder trial than transportal, though certainly that seems hard
enough. Indeed I suspect I go even further than you in this respect; but it is
too long a story.
Thank you for the Aristolochia and Viscum cases: what species were
they? I ask, because oddly these two very genera I have seen advanced as
instances (I forget at present by whom, but by good men) in which the
agency of insects was absolutely necessary for impregnation. In our British
dioecious Viscum I suppose it must be necessary. Was there anything to
show that the stigma was ready for pollen in these two cases? for it seems

that there are many cases in which pollen is shed long before the stigma is
ready. As in our Viscum, insects carry, sufficiently regularly for
impregnation, pollen from flower to flower, I should think that there must
be occasional crosses even in an hermaphrodite Viscum. I have never heard
of bees and butterflies, only moths, producing fertile eggs without
copulation.
With respect to the Ray Society, I profited so enormously by its
publishing my Cirrepedia, that I cannot quite agree with you on confining it
to translations; I know not how else I could possibly have published.
I have just sent in my name for 20 pounds to the Linnaean Society, but I
must confess I have done it with heavy groans, whereas I daresay you gave
your 20 pounds like a light-hearted gentleman...
P.S. Wollaston speaks strongly about the intermediate grade between two
varieties in insects and mollusca being often rarer than the two varieties
themselves. This is obviously very important for me, and not easy to
explain. I believe I have had cases from you. But, if you believe in this, I
wish you would give me a sentence to quote from you on this head. There
must, I think, be a good deal of truth in it; otherwise there could hardly be
nearly distinct varieties under any species, for we should have instead a
blending series, as in brambles and willows.
LETTER 49. TO J.D. HOOKER. July 13th, 1856.
What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful,
blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature! With respect to
crossing, from one sentence in your letter I think you misunderstand me. I
am very far from believing in hybrids: only in crossing of the same species
or of close varieties. These two or three last days I have been observing
wheat, and have convinced myself that L. Deslongchamps is in error about
impregnation taking place in closed flowers; i.e., of course, I can judge only
from external appearances. By the way, R. Brown once told me that the use
of the brush on stigma of grasses was unknown. Do you know its use?...
You say most truly about multiple creations and my notions. If any one
case could be proved, I should be smashed; but as I am writing my book, I
try to take as much pains as possible to give the strongest cases opposed to
me, and often such conjectures as occur to me. I have been working your
books as the richest (and vilest) mine against me; and what hard work I
have had to get up your New Zealand Flora! As I have to quote you so

often, I should like to refer to Muller's case of the Australian Alps. Where is
it published? Is it a book? A correct reference would be enough for me,
though it is wrong even to quote without looking oneself. I should like to
see very much Forbes's sheets, which you refer to; but I must confess (I
hardly know why) I have got rather to mistrust poor dear Forbes.
There is wonderful ill logic in his famous and admirable memoir on
distribution, as it appears to me, now that I have got it up so as to give the
heads in a page. Depend on it, my saying is a true one—viz. that a compiler
is a great man, and an original man a commonplace man. Any fool can
generalise and speculate; but oh, my heavens, to get up at second hand a
New Zealand Flora, that is work...
And now I am going to beg almost as great a favour as a man can beg of
another: and I ask some five or six weeks before I want the favour done,
that it may appear less horrid. It is to read, but well copied out, my pages
(about forty!!) on Alpine floras and faunas, Arctic and Antarctic floras and
faunas, and the supposed cold mundane period. It would be really an
enormous advantage to me, as I am sure otherwise to make botanical
blunders. I would specify the few points on which I most want your advice.
But it is quite likely that you may object on the ground that you might be
publishing before me (I hope to publish in a year at furthest), so that it
would hamper and bother you; and secondly you may object to the loss of
time, for I daresay it would take an hour and a half to read. It certainly
would be of immense advantage to me; but of course you must not think of
doing it if it would interfere with your own work.
I do not consider this request in futuro as breaking my promise to give no
more trouble for some time.
From Lyell's letters, he is coming round at a railway pace on the
mutability of species, and authorises me to put some sentences on this head
in my preface.
I shall meet Lyell on Wednesday at Lord Stanhope's, and will ask him to
forward my letter to you; though, as my arguments have not struck him,
they cannot have force, and my head must be crotchety on the subject; but
the crotchets keep firmly there. I have given your opinion on continuous
land, I see, too strongly.
LETTER 50. TO S.P. WOODWARD. Down, July 18th {1856}.

Very many thanks for your kindness in writing to me at such length, and I
am glad to say for your sake that I do not see that I shall have to beg any
further favours. What a range and what a variability in the Cyrena! (50/1. A
genus of Lamellibranchs ranging from the Lias to the present day.) Your list
of the ranges of the land and fresh-water shells certainly is most striking
and curious, and especially as the antiquity of four of them is so clearly
shown.
I have got Harvey's seaside book, and liked it; I was not particularly
struck with it, but I will re-read the first and last chapters.
I am growing as bad as the worst about species, and hardly have a vestige
of belief in the permanence of species left in me; and this confession will
make you think very lightly of me, but I cannot help it. Such has become
my honest conviction, though the difficulties and arguments against such
heresy are certainly most weighty.
LETTER 51. TO C. LYELL. November 10th {1856}.
I know you like all cases of negative geological evidence being upset. I
fancied that I was a most unwilling believer in negative evidence; but yet
such negative evidence did seem to me so strong that in my "Fossil
Lepadidae" I have stated, giving reasons, that I did not believe there could
have existed any sessile cirripedes during the Secondary ages. Now, the
other day Bosquet of Maestricht sends me a perfect drawing of a perfect
Chthamalus (a recent genus) from the Chalk! (51/1. Chthamalus, a genus of
Cirripedia. ("A Monograph on the Sub-class Cirripedia," by Charles
Darwin, page 447. London, 1854.) A fossil species of this genus of Upper
Cretaceous age was named by Bosquet Chthamalus Darwini. See "Origin,"
Edition VI., page 284; also Zittel, "Traite de Paleontologie," Traduit par Dr.
C. Barrois, Volume II., page 540, figure 748. Paris, 1887.) Indeed, it is
stretching a point to make it specifically distinct from our living British
species. It is a genus not hitherto found in any Tertiary bed.
LETTER 52. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, July 9th, 1857.
I am extremely much obliged to you for having so fully entered on my
point. I knew I was on unsafe ground, but it proves far unsafer than I had
thought. I had thought that Brulle (52/1. This no doubt refers to A. Brulle's
paper in the "Comptes rendus" 1844, of which a translation is given in the
"Annals and Mag. of Natural History," 1844, page 484. In speaking of the
development of the Articulata, the author says "that the appendages are

manifested at an earlier period of the existence of an Articulate animal the
more complex its degree of organisation, and vice versa that they make
their appearance the later, the fewer the number of transformations which it
has to undergo.") had a wider basis for his generalisation, for I made the
extract several years ago, and I presume (I state it as some excuse for
myself) that I doubted it, for, differently from my general habit, I have not
extracted his grounds. It was meeting with Barneoud's paper which made
me think there might be truth in the doctrine. (52/2. Apparently Barneoud
"On the Organogeny of Irregular Corollas," from the "Comptes rendus,"
1847, as given in "Annals and Mag. of Natural History," 1847, page 440.
The paper chiefly deals with the fact that in their earliest condition irregular
flowers are regular. The view attributed to Barneoud does not seem so
definitely given in this paper as in a previous one ("Ann. Sc. Nat." Bot.,
Tom. VI., page 268.) Your instance of heart and brain of fish seems to me
very good. It was a very stupid blunder on my part not thinking of the
posterior part of the time of development. I shall, of course, not allude to
this subject, which I rather grieve about, as I wished it to be true; but, alas!
a scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections—a mere heart of
stone.
There is only one point in your letter which at present I cannot quite
follow you in: supposing that Barneoud's (I do not say Brulle's) remarks
were true and universal—i.e., that the petals which have to undergo the
greatest amount of development and modification begin to change the
soonest from the simple and common embryonic form of the petal—if this
were a true law, then I cannot but think that it would throw light on Milne
Edwards' proposition that the wider apart the classes of animals are, the
sooner do they diverge from the common embryonic plan—which common
embryonic {plan} may be compared with the similar petals in the early bud,
the several petals in one flower being compared to the distinct but similar
embryos of the different classes. I much wish that you would so far keep
this in mind, that whenever we meet I might hear how far you differ or
concur in this. I have always looked at Barneoud's and Brulle's proposition
as only in some degree analogous.
P.S. I see in my abstract of Milne Edwards' paper, he speaks of "the most
perfect and important organs" as being first developed, and I should have
thought that this was usually synonymous with the most developed or
modified.

LETTER 53. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(53/1. The following letter is chiefly of interest as showing the amount
and kind of work required for Darwin's conclusions on "large genera
varying," which occupy no more than two or three pages in the "Origin"
(Edition I., page 55). Some correspondence on the subject is given in the
"Life and Letters," II., pages 102-5.)
Down, August 22nd {1857}.
Your handwriting always rejoices the cockles of my heart; though you
have no reason to be "overwhelmed with shame," as I did not expect to
hear.
I write now chiefly to know whether you can tell me how to write to
Hermann Schlagenheit (is this spelt right?) (53/2. Schlagintweit.), for I
believe he is returned to England, and he has poultry skins for me from W.
Elliot of Madras.
I am very glad to hear that you have been tabulating some Floras about
varieties. Will you just tell me roughly the result? Do you not find it takes
much time? I am employing a laboriously careful schoolmaster, who does
the tabulating and dividing into two great cohorts, more carefully than I
can. This being so, I should be very glad some time to have Koch, Webb's
Canaries, and Ledebour, and Grisebach, but I do not know even where
Rumelia is. I shall work the British flora with three separate Floras; and I
intend dividing the varieties into two classes, as Asa Gray and Henslow
give the materials, and, further, A. Gray and H.C. Watson have marked for
me the forms, which they consider real species, but yet are very close to
others; and it will be curious to compare results. If it will all hold good it is
very important for me; for it explains, as I think, all classification, i.e. the
quasi-branching and sub-branching of forms, as if from one root, big genera
increasing and splitting up, etc., as you will perceive. But then comes in,
also, what I call a principle of divergence, which I think I can explain, but
which is too long, and perhaps you would not care to hear. As you have
been on this subject, you might like to hear what very little is complete (for
my schoolmaster has had three weeks' holidays)—only three cases as yet, I
see.

BABINGTON—British Flora.

593 species in genera of 5 and 593 (odd chance equal) in

upwards have in a thousand genera of 3 and downwards have
species presenting vars. in a thousand presenting vars.
134/1000.* 37/1000.

(*53/3. This sentence may be interpreted as follows: The number of
species which present varieties are 134 per thousand in genera of 5 species
and upwards. The result is obtained from tabulation of 593 species.)

HOOKER—New Zealand.

Genera with 4 species and With 3 species and downwards
upwards, 150/1000. 114/1000.

GODRON—Central France.

With 5 species and upwards With 3 species and downwards
160/1000. 105/1000.

I do not enter into details on omitting introduced plants and very varying
genera, as Rubus, Salix, Rosa, etc., which would make the result more in
favour.
I enjoyed seeing Henslow extremely, though I was a good way from well
at the time. Farewell, my dear Hooker: do not forget your visit here some
time.
LETTER 54. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 14th {1857}.
On Tuesday I will send off from London, whither I go on that day,
Ledebour's three remaining volumes, Grisebach and Cybele, i.e., all that I
have, and most truly am I obliged to you for them. I find the rule, as yet, of
the species varying most in the large genera universal, except in Miquel's
very brief and therefore imperfect list of the Holland flora, which makes me
very anxious to tabulate a fuller flora of Holland. I shall remain in London
till Friday morning, and if quite convenient to send me two volumes of D.C.
Prodromus, I could take them home and tabulate them. I should think a
volume with a large best known natural family, and a volume with several
small broken families would be best, always supposing that the varieties are
conspicuously marked in both. Have you the volume published by Lowe on
Madeira? If so and if any varieties are marked I should much like to see it,
to see if I can make out anything about habitats of vars. in so small an area
—a point on which I have become very curious. I fear there is no chance of
your possessing Forbes and Hancock "British Shells," a grand work, which
I much wish to tabulate.
Very many thanks for seed of Adlumia cirrhosa, which I will carefully
observe. My notice in the G. Ch. on Kidney Beans (54.1 "On the Agency of

Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers" ("Gardeners'
Chronicle," 1857, page 725).) has brought me a curious letter from an
intelligent gardener, with a most remarkable lot of beans, crossed in a
marvellous manner IN THE FIRST GENERATION, like the peas sent to
you by Berkeley and like those experimentalised on by Gartner and by
Wiegmann. It is a very odd case; I shall sow these seeds and see what
comes up. How very odd that pollen of one form should affect the outer
coats and size of the bean produced by pure species!...
LETTER 55. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1857?}.
You know how I work subjects: namely, if I stumble on any general
remark, and if I find it confirmed in any other very distinct class, then I try
to find out whether it is true,—if it has any bearing on my work. The
following, perhaps, may be important to me. Dr. Wight remarks that
Cucurbitaceae (55/1. Wight, "Remarks on the Fruit of the Natural Order
Cucurbitaceae" ("Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." VIII., page 261). R. Wight, F.R.S.
(1796-1872) was Superintendent of the Madras Botanic Garden.) is a very
isolated family, and has very diverging affinities. I find, strongly put and
illustrated, the very same remark in the genera of hymenoptera. Now, it is
not to me at first apparent why a very distinct and isolated group should be
apt to have more divergent affinities than a less isolated group. I am aware
that most genera have more affinities than in two ways, which latter,
perhaps, is the commonest case. I see how infinitely vague all this is; but I
should very much like to know what you and Mr. Bentham (if he will read
this), who have attended so much to the principles of classification, think of
this. Perhaps the best way would be to think of half a dozen most isolated
groups of plants, and then consider whether the affinities point in an
unusual number of directions. Very likely you may think the whole question
too vague to be worth consideration.
LETTER 56. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 8th {1857}.
I now want to ask your opinion, and for facts on a point; and as I shall
often want to do this during the next year or two, so let me say, once for all,
that you must not take trouble out of mere good nature (of which towards
me you have a most abundant stock), but you must consider, in regard to the
trouble any question may take, whether you think it worth while—as all
loss of time so far lessens your original work—to give me facts to be
quoted on your authority in my work. Do not think I shall be disappointed if

you cannot spare time; for already I have profited enormously from your
judgment and knowledge. I earnestly beg you to act as I suggest, and not
take trouble solely out of good-nature.
My point is as follows: Harvey gives the case of Fucus varying
remarkably, and yet in same way under most different conditions. D. Don
makes same remark in regard to Juncus bufonius in England and India.
Polygala vulgaris has white, red, and blue flowers in Faroe, England, and I
think Herbert says in Zante. Now such cases seem to me very striking, as
showing how little relation some variations have to climatal conditions.
Do you think there are many such cases? Does Oxalis corniculata present
exactly the same varieties under very different climates?
How is it with any other British plants in New Zealand, or at the foot of
the Himalaya? Will you think over this and let me hear the result?
One other question: do you remember whether the introduced Sonchus in
New Zealand was less, equally, or more common than the aboriginal stock
of the same species, where both occurred together? I forget whether there is
any other case parallel with this curious one of the Sonchus...
I have been making good, though slow, progress with my book, for facts
have been falling nicely into groups, enlightening each other.
LETTER 57. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Moor Park, Farnham, Surrey {1857?}.
Your letter has been forwarded to me here, where I am profiting by a few
weeks' rest and hydropathy. Your letter has interested and amused me much.
I am extremely glad you have taken up the Aphis (57/1. Professor Huxley's
paper on the organic reproduction of Aphis is in the "Trans. Linn. Soc."
XXII. (1858), page 193. Prof. Owen had treated the subject in his
introductory Hunterian lecture "On Parthenogenesis" (1849). His theory
cannot be fully given here. Briefly, he holds that parthenogenesis is due to
the inheritance of a "remnant of spermatic virtue": when the "spermatic
force" or "virtue" is exhausted fresh impregnation occurs. Huxley severely
criticises both Owen's facts and his theory.) question, but, for Heaven's
sake, do not come the mild Hindoo (whatever he may be) to Owen; your
father confessor trembles for you. I fancy Owen thinks much of this
doctrine of his; I never from the first believed it, and I cannot but think that
the same power is concerned in producing aphides without fertilisation, and
producing, for instance, nails on the amputated stump of a man's fingers, or
the new tail of a lizard. By the way, I saw somewhere during the last week

or so a statement of a man rearing from the same set of eggs winged and
wingless aphides, which seemed new to me. Does not some Yankee say that
the American viviparous aphides are winged? I am particularly glad that
you are ruminating on the act of fertilisation: it has long seemed to me the
most wonderful and curious of physiological problems. I have often and
often speculated for amusement on the subject, but quite fruitlessly. Do you
not think that the conjugation of the Diatomaceae will ultimately throw
light on the subject? But the other day I came to the conclusion that some
day we shall have cases of young being produced from spermatozoa or
pollen without an ovule. Approaching the subject from the side which
attracts me most, viz., inheritance, I have lately been inclined to speculate,
very crudely and indistinctly, that propagation by true fertilisation will turn
out to be a sort of mixture, and not true fusion, of two distinct individuals,
or rather of innumerable individuals, as each parent has its parents and
ancestors. I can understand on no other view the way in which crossed
forms go back to so large an extent to ancestral forms. But all this, of
course, is infinitely crude. I hope to be in London in the course of this
month, and there are two or three points which, for my own sake, I want to
discuss briefly with you.
LETTER 58. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 26th {1857}.
Thanks for your very pleasant note. It amuses me to see what a bug-bear
I have made myself to you; when having written some very pungent and
good sentence it must be very disagreeable to have my face rise up like an
ugly ghost. (58/1. This probably refers to Darwin's wish to moderate a
certain pugnacity in Huxley.) I have always suspected Agassiz of
superficiality and wretched reasoning powers; but I think such men do
immense good in their way. See how he stirred up all Europe about glaciers.
By the way, Lyell has been at the glaciers, or rather their effects, and seems
to have done good work in testing and judging what others have done...
In regard to classification and all the endless disputes about the "Natural
System," which no two authors define in the same way, I believe it ought, in
accordance to my heterodox notions, to be simply genealogical. But as we
have no written pedigrees you will, perhaps, say this will not help much;
but I think it ultimately will, whenever heterodoxy becomes orthodoxy, for
it will clear away an immense amount of rubbish about the value of
characters, and will make the difference between analogy and homology

clear. The time will come, I believe, though I shall not live to see it, when
we shall have very fairly true genealogical trees of each great kingdom of
Nature.
LETTER 59. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 16th {1857}.
In my opinion your Catalogue (59/1. It appears from a letter to Sir J.D.
Hooker (December 25th, 1857) that the reference is to the proofs of
Huxley's "Explanatory Preface to the Catalogue of the Palaeontological
Collection in the Museum of Practical Geology," by T.H. Huxley and R.
Etheridge, 1865. Mr. Huxley appends a note at page xlix: "It should be
noted that these pages were written before the appearance of Mr. Darwin's
book on 'The Origin of Species'—a work which has effected a revolution in
biological speculation.") is simply the very best resume, by far, on the
whole science of Natural History, which I have ever seen. I really have no
criticisms: I agree with every word. Your metaphors and explanations strike
me as admirable. In many parts it is curious how what you have written
agrees with what I have been writing, only with the melancholy difference
for me that you put everything in twice as striking a manner as I do. I
append, more for the sake of showing that I have attended to the whole than
for any other object, a few most trivial criticisms.
I was amused to meet with some of the arguments, which you advanced
in talk with me, on classification; and it pleases me, {that} my long proses
were so far not thrown away, as they led you to bring out here some good
sentences. But on classification (59/2. This probably refers to Mr. Huxley's
discussion on "Natural Classification," a subject hardly susceptible of
fruitful treatment except from an evolutionary standpoint.) I am not quite
sure that I yet wholly go with you, though I agree with every word you have
here said. The whole, I repeat, in my opinion is admirable and excellent.
LETTER 60. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 28th {1858}.
Hearty thanks for De Candolle received. I have put the big genera in
hand. Also many thanks for your valuable remarks on the affinities of the
species in great genera, which will be of much use to me in my chapter on
classification. Your opinion is what I had expected from what little I knew,
but I much wanted it confirmed, and many of your remarks were more or
less new to me and all of value.
You give a poor picture of the philosophy of Botany. From my ignorance,
I suppose, I can hardly persuade myself that things are quite as bad as you

make them,—you might have been writing remarks on Ornithology! I shall
meditate much on your remarks, which will also come in very useful when I
write and consider my tables of big and small genera. I grieve for myself to
say that Watson agrees with your view, but with much doubt. I gave him no
guide what your opinion was. I have written to A. Gray and to X., who—i.e.
the latter—on this point may be looked at as S. Smith's Foolometer.
I am now working several of the large local Floras, with leaving out
altogether all the smallest genera. When I have done this, and seen what the
sections of the largest genera say, and seen what the results are of range and
commonness of varying species, I must come to some definite conclusion
whether or not entirely to give up the ghost. I shall then show how my
theory points, how the facts stand, then state the nature of your grievous
assault and yield entirely or defend the case as far as I can honestly.
Again I thank you for your invaluable assistance. I have not felt the blow
{Hooker's criticisms} so much of late, as I have been beyond measure
interested on the constructive instinct of the hive-bee. Adios, you terrible
worrier of poor theorists!
LETTER 61. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1858?}
Many thanks for Ledebour and still more for your letter, with its
admirable resume of all your objections. It is really most kind of you to take
so very much trouble about what seems to you, and probably is, mere
vagaries.
I will earnestly try and be cautious. I will write out my tables and
conclusion, and (when well copied out) I hope you will be so kind as to
read it. I will then put it by and after some months look at it with fresh eyes.
I will briefly work in all your objections and Watson's. I labour under a
great difficulty from feeling sure that, with what very little systematic work
I have done, small genera were more interesting and therefore more
attracted my attention.
One of your remarks I do not see the bearing of under your point of view
—namely, that in monotypic genera "the variation and variability" are
"much more frequently noticed" than in polytypic genera. I hardly like to
ask, but this is the only one of your arguments of which I do not see the
bearing; and I certainly should be very glad to know. I believe I am the
slowest (perhaps the worst) thinker in England; and I now consequently
fully admit the full hostility of Urticaceae, which I will give in my tables.

I will make no remarks on your objections, as I do hope you will read my
MS., which will not cost you much trouble when fairly copied out. From
my own experience, I hardly believe that the most sagacious observers,
without counting, could have predicted whether there were more or fewer
recorded varieties in large or small genera; for I found, when actually
making the list, that I could never strike a balance in my mind,—a good
many varieties occurring together, in small or in large genera, always threw
me off the balance...
P.S.—I have just thought that your remark about the much variation of
monotypic genera was to show me that even in these, the smallest genera,
there was much variability. If this be so, then do not answer; and I will so
understand it.
LETTER 62. TO J.D. HOOKER. February 23rd {1858}.
Will you think of some of the largest genera with which you are well
acquainted, and then suppose 4/5 of the species utterly destroyed and
unknown in the sections (as it were) as much as possible in the centre of
such great genera. Then would the remaining 1/5 of the species, forming a
few sections, be, according to the general practice of average good
Botanists, ranked as distinct genera? Of course they would in that case be
closely related genera. The question, in fact, is, are all the species in a
gigantic genus kept together in that genus, because they are really so very
closely similar as to be inseparable? or is it because no chasms or
boundaries can be drawn separating the many species? The question might
have been put for Orders.
LETTER 63. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 9th {1858}.
I should be very much obliged for your opinion on the enclosed. You may
remember in the three first volumes tabulated, all orders went right except
Labiatae. By the way, if by any extraordinary chance you have not thrown
away the scrap of paper with former results, I wish you would return it, for I
have lost my copy, and I shall have all the division to do again; but DO
NOT hunt for it, for in any case I should have gone over the calculation
again.
Now I have done the three other volumes. You will see that all species in
the six volumes together go right, and likewise all orders in the three last
volumes, except Verbenaceae. Is not Verbenaceae very closely allied to
Labiatae? If so, one would think that it was not mere chance, this

coincidence. The species in Labiatae and Verbenaceae together are between
1/5 and 1/6 of all the species (15,645), which I have now tabulated.
Now, bearing in mind the many local Floras which I have tabulated
(belting the whole northern hemisphere), and considering that they (and
authors of D.C. Prodromus) would probably take different degrees of care
in recording varieties, and the genera would be divided on different
principles by different men, etc., I am much surprised at the uniformity of
the result, and I am satisfied that there must be truth in the rule that the
small genera vary less than the large. What do you think? Hypothetically I
can conjecture how the Labiatae might fail—namely, if some small
divisions of the Order were now coming into importance in the world and
varying much and making species. This makes me want to know whether
you could divide the Labiatae into a few great natural divisions, and then I
would tabulate them separately as sub-orders. I see Lindley makes so many
divisions that there would not be enough in each for an average. I send the
table of the Labiatae for the chance of your being able to do this for me.
You might draw oblique lines including and separating both large and small
genera. I have also divided all the species into two equal masses, and my
rule holds good for all the species in a mass in the six volumes; but it fails
in several (four) large Orders—viz. Labiatae, Scrophulariaceae,
Acanthaceae, and Proteaceae. But, then, when the species are divided into
two almost exactly equal divisions, the divisions with large genera are so
very few: for instance, in Solanaceae, Solanum balances all others. In
Labiatae seven gigantic genera balance all others (viz. 113), and in
Proteaceae five genera balance all others. Now, according to my
hypothetical notions, I am far from supposing that all genera go on
increasing forever, and therefore I am not surprised at this result, when the
division is so made that only a very few genera are on one side. But,
according to my notions, the sections or sub-genera of the gigantic genera
ought to obey my rule (i.e., supposing a gigantic genus had come to its
maximum, whatever increase was still going on ought to be going on in the
larger sub-genera). Do you think that the sections of the gigantic genera in
D.C. Prodromus are generally NATURAL: i.e. not founded on mere
artificial characters? If you think that they are generally made as natural as
they can be, then I should like very much to tabulate the sub-genera,
considering them for the time as good genera. In this case, and if you do not
think me unreasonable to ask it, I should be very glad of the loan of

Volumes X., XI., XII., and XIV., which include Acanthaceae,
Scrophulariaceae, Labiatae, and Proteaceae,—that is, the orders which,
when divided quite equally, do not accord with my rule, and in which a very
few genera balance all the others.
I have written you a tremendous long prose.
LETTER 64. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 8th {1858}.
I am confined to the sofa with boils, so you must let me write in pencil.
You would laugh if you could know how much your note pleased me. I had
the firmest conviction that you would say all my MS. was bosh, and thank
God, you are one of the few men who dare speak the truth. Though I should
not have much cared about throwing away what you have seen, yet I have
been forced to confess to myself that all was much alike, and if you
condemned that you would condemn all my life's work, and that I confess
made me a little low; but I could have borne it, for I have the conviction
that I have honestly done my best. The discussion comes in at the end of the
long chapter on variation in a state of nature, so that I have discussed, as far
as I am able, what to call varieties. I will try to leave out all allusion to
genera coming in and out in this part, till when I discuss the "Principle of
Divergence," which, with "Natural Selection," is the keystone of my book;
and I have very great confidence it is sound. I would have this discussion
copied out, if I could really think it would not bore you to read,—for,
believe me, I value to the full every word of criticism from you, and the
advantage which I have derived from you cannot be told...
I am glad to hear that poor old Brown is dying so easily...
You will think it paltry, but as I was asked to pay for printing the
Diploma {from a Society of which he had been made an honorary
member}, I did not like to refuse, so I send 1 pound. But I think it a shabby
proceeding. If a gentleman did me some service, though unasked to do it,
and then demanded payment, I should pay him, and think him a shabby
dog; and on this principle I send my 1 pound.
(65/1. The following four letters refer to an inquiry instituted in 1858 by
the Trustees of the British Museum as to the disposal of the Natural History
Collections. The inquiry was one of the first steps towards the establishment
of the Cromwell Road Museum, which was effected in 1875.)
LETTER 65. TO R.I. MURCHISON. Down, June 19th {1858}.

I have just received your note. Unfortunately I cannot attend at the
British Museum on Monday. I do not suppose my opinion on the subject of
your note can be of any value, as I have not much considered the subject, or
had the advantage of discussing it with other naturalists. But my impression
is, that there is much weight in what you say about not breaking up the
natural history collection of the British Museum. I think a national
collection ought to be in London. I can, however, see that some weighty
arguments might be advanced in favour of Kew, owing to the immense
value of Sir W. Hooker's collection and library; but these are private
property, and I am not aware that there is any certainty of their always
remaining at Kew. Had this been the case, I should have thought that the
botanical collection might have been removed there without endangering
the other branches of the collections. But I think it would be the greatest
evil which could possibly happen to natural science in this country if the
other collections were ever to be removed from the British Museum and
Library.
LETTER 66. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(66/1. The memorial referred to in the following letter was addressed on
November 18th to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was signed by
Huxley, Bentham, W.H. Harvey, Henfrey, Henslow, Lindley, Busk,
Carpenter, and Darwin. The memorial, which is accessible, as published in
the "Gardeners' Chronicle," November 27th, 1858, page 861,
recommended, speaking generally, the consolidation of the National
Botanical collections at Kew.
In February, 1900, a Committee was appointed by the Lords
Commissioners of the Treasury "to consider the present arrangements under
which botanical work is done and collections maintained by the Trustees of
the British Museum, and under the First Commissioner of Works at Kew,
respectively; and to report what changes (if any) in those arrangements are
necessary or desirable in order to avoid duplication of work and collections
at the two institutions." The Committee published their report in March,
1901, recommending an arrangement similar to that proposed in 1858.)
Down, October 23rd {1858}.
The names which you give as supporting your memorial make me quite
distrust my own judgment; but, as I must say yea or nay, I am forced to say
that I doubt the wisdom of the movement, and am not willing at present to

sign. My reasons, perhaps of very little value, are as follows. The governing
classes are thoroughly unscientific, and the men of art and of archaeology
have much greater weight with Government than we have. If we make a
move to separate from the British Museum, I cannot but fear that we may
go to the dogs. I think we owe our position in large part to the hundreds of
thousands of people who visit the British Museum, attracted by the
heterogeneous mixture of objects. If we lost this support, as I think we
should—for a mere collection of animals does not seem very attractive to
the masses (judging from the Museum of the Zoological Society, formerly
in Leicester Square)—then I do not think we should get nearly so much aid
from Government. Therefore I should be inclined to stick to the mummies
and Assyrian gods as long as we could. If we knew that Government was
going to turn us out, then, and not till then, I should be inclined to make an
energetic move. If we were to separate, I do not believe that we should have
funds granted for the many books required for occasional reference: each
man must speak from his own experience. I have so repeatedly required to
see old Transactions and old Travels, etc., that I should regret extremely,
when at work at the British Museum, to be separated from the entire library.
The facilities for working at certain great classes—as birds, large fossils,
etc.—are no doubt as bad as possible, or rather impossible, on the open
days; but I have found the working rooms of the Assistants very convenient
for all other classes on all days.
In regard to the botanical collections, I am too ignorant to express any
opinion. The point seems to be how far botanists would object to travel to
Kew; but there are evidently many great advantages in the transportation.
If I had my own way, I would make the British Museum collection only a
typical one for display, which would be quite as amusing and far more
instructive to the populace (and I think to naturalists) than the present
enormous display of birds and mammals. I would save expense of stuffing,
and would keep all skins, except a few "typicals," in drawers. Thus much
room would be saved, and a little more space could be given to real
workers, who could work all day. Rooms fitted up with thousands of
drawers would cost very little. With this I should be contented. Until I had
pretty sure information that we were going to be turned out, I would not stir
in the matter. With such opponents as you name, I daresay I am quite
wrong; but this is my best, though doubtful, present judgment...

It seems to me dangerous even to hint at a new Scientific Museum—a
popular Museum, and to subsidise the Zoological Gardens; it would, I
think, frighten any Government.
LETTER 67. TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park, Farnham, Surrey {October}
29th {1858}.
As you say that you have good private information that Government does
intend to remove the collection from the British Museum, the case to me
individually is wholly changed; and as the memorial now stands, with such
expression at its head, I have no objection whatever to sign. I must express
a very strong opinion that it would be an immense evil to remove to
Kensington, not on account of the men of science so much as for the masses
in the whole eastern and central part of London. I further think it would be a
great evil to separate a typical collection (which I can by no means look at
as only popular) from the collection in full. Might not some expression be
added, even stronger than those now used, on the display (which is a sort of
vanity in the curators) of such a vast number of birds and mammals, with
such a loss of room. I am low at the conviction that Government will never
give money enough for a really good library.
I do not want to be crotchety, but I should hate signing without some
expression about the site being easily accessible to the populace of the
whole of London.
I repeat, as things now stand, I shall be proud to sign.
LETTER 68. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 3rd {1858}.
I most entirely subscribe to all you say in your note. I have had some
correspondence with Hooker on the subject. As it seems certain that a
movement in the British Museum is generally anticipated, my main
objection is quite removed; and, as I have told Hooker, I have no objection
whatever to sign a memorial of the nature of the one he sent me or that now
returned. Both seem to me very good. I cannot help being fearful whether
Government will ever grant money enough for books. I can see many
advantages in not being under the unmotherly wing of art and archaeology,
and my only fear was that we were not strong enough to live without some
protection, so profound, I think, is the contempt for and ignorance of
Natural Science amongst the gentry of England. Hooker tells me that I
should be converted into favour of Kensington Gore if I heard all that could
be said in its favour; but I cannot yet help thinking so western a locality a

great misfortune. Has Lyell been consulted? His would be a powerful name,
and such names go for much with our ignorant Governors. You seem to
have taken much trouble in the business, and I honour you for it.
LETTER 69. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 9th {1858}.
I am quite delighted to hear about the Copley and Lyell. (69/1. The
Copley Medal of the Royal Society was awarded to Lyell in 1858.) I have
grown hot with indignation many times thinking of the way the proposal
was met last year, according to your account of it. I am also very glad to
hear of Hancock (Albany Hancock received a Royal Medal in 1858.); it will
show the provincials are not neglected. Altogether the medals are capital. I
shall be proud and bound to help in any way about the eloge, which is
rather a heavy tax on proposers of medals, as I found about Richardson and
Westwood; but Lyell's case will be twenty times as difficult. I will begin
this very evening dotting down a few remarks on Lyell; though, no doubt,
most will be superfluous, and several would require deliberate
consideration. Anyhow, such notes may be a preliminary aid to you; I will
send them in a few days' time, and will do anything else you may wish...
P.S.—I have had a letter from Henslow this morning. He comes here on
{Thursday} 25th, and I shall be delighted to see him; but it stops my
coming to the Club, as I had arranged to do, and now I suppose I shall not
be in London till December 16th, if odds and ends do not compel me to
come sooner. Of course I have not said a word to Henslow of my change of
plans. I had looked forward with pleasure to a chat with you and others.
P.S. 2.—I worked all yesterday evening in thinking, and have written the
paper sent by this post this morning. Not one sentence would do, but it is
the sort of rough sketch which I should have drawn out if I had had to do it.
God knows whether it will at all aid you. It is miserably written, with
horridly bad metaphors, probably horrid bad grammar. It is my deliberate
impression, such as I should have written to any friend who had asked me
what I thought of Lyell's merits. I will do anything else which you may
wish, or that I can.
LETTER 70. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 30th {1858}.
I have had this copied to save you trouble, as it was vilely written, and is
now vilely expressed.
Your letter has interested me greatly; but how inextricable are the
subjects which we are discussing! I do not think I said that I thought the

productions of Asia were HIGHER (70/1. On the use of the terms "higher"
and "lower" see Letters 35 and 36.) than those of Australia. I intend
carefully to avoid this expression (70/2. In a paper of pencilled notes pinned
into Darwin's copy of the "Vestiges" occur the words: "Never use the word
(sic) higher and lower."), for I do not think that any one has a definite idea
what is meant by higher, except in classes which can loosely be compared
with man. On our theory of Natural Selection, if the organisms of any area
belonging to the Eocene or Secondary periods were put into competition
with those now existing in the same area (or probably in any part of the
world) they (i.e. the old ones) would be beaten hollow and be exterminated;
if the theory be true, this must be so. In the same manner, I believe, a
greater number of the productions of Asia, the largest territory in the world,
would beat those of Australia, than conversely. So it seems to be between
Europe and North America, for I can hardly believe in the difference of the
stream of commerce causing so great a difference in the proportions of
immigrants. But this sort of highness (I wish I could invent some
expression, and must try to do so) is different from highness in the common
acceptation of the word. It might be connected with degradation of
organisation: thus the blind degraded worm-like snake (Typhlops) might
supplant the true earthworm. Here then would be degradation in the class,
but certainly increase in the scale of organisation in the general inhabitants
of the country. On the other hand, it would be quite as easy to believe that
true earthworms might beat out the Typhlops. I do not see how this
"competitive highness" can be tested in any way by us. And this is a
comfort to me when mentally comparing the Silurian and Recent
organisms. Not that I doubt a long course of "competitive highness" will
ultimately make the organisation higher in every sense of the word; but it
seems most difficult to test it. Look at the Erigeron canadensis on the one
hand and Anacharis (70/3. Anacharis (Elodea canadensis) and Erigeron
canadensis are both successful immigrants from America.) on the other;
these plants must have some advantage over European productions, to
spread as they have. Yet who could discover it? Monkeys can co-exist with
sloths and opossums, orders at the bottom of the scale; and the opossums
might well be beaten by placental insectivores, coming from a country
where there were no monkeys, etc. I should be sorry to give up the view
that an old and very large continuous territory would generally produce
organisms higher in the competitive sense than a smaller territory. I may, of

course, be quite wrong about the plants of Australia (and your facts are, of
course, quite new to me on their highness), but when I read the accounts of
the immense spreading of European plants in Australia, and think of the
wool and corn brought thence to Europe, and not one plant naturalised, I
can hardly avoid the suspicion that Europe beats Australia in its
productions. If many (i.e. more than one or two) Australian plants are
TRULY naturalised in India (N.B. Naturalisation on Indian mountains
hardly quite fair, as mountains are small islands in the land) I must strike
my colours. I should be glad to hear whether what I have written very
obscurely on this point produces ANY effect on you; for I want to clear my
mind, as perhaps I should put a sentence or two in my abstract on this
subject. (70/4. Abstract was Darwin's name for the "Origin" during parts of
1858 and 1859.)
I have always been willing to strike my colours on former immense tracts
of land in oceans, if any case required it in an eminent degree. Perhaps
yours may be a case, but at present I greatly prefer land in the Antarctic
regions, where now there is only ice and snow, but which before the Glacial
period might well have been clothed by vegetation. You have thus to invent
far less land, and that more central; and aid is got by floating ice for
transporting seed.
I hope I shall not weary you by scribbling my notions at this length. After
writing last to you I began to think that the Malay Land might have existed
through part of the Glacial epoch. Why I at first doubted was from the
difference of existing mammals in different islands; but many are very
close, and some identical in the islands, and I am constantly deceiving
myself from thinking of the little change which the shells and plants, whilst
all co-existing in their own northern hemisphere, have undergone since the
Glacial epoch; but I am convinced that this is most false reasoning, for the
relations of organism to new organisms, when thrown together, are by far
the most important.
When you speak of plants having undergone more change since old
geological periods than animals, are you not rather comparing plants with
higher animals? Think how little some, indeed many, mollusca have
changed. Remember Silurian Nautilus, Lingula and other Brachiopods, and
Nucula, and amongst Echinoderms, the Silurian Asterias, etc.

What you say about lowness of brackish-water plants interests me. I
remember that they are apt to be social (i.e. many individuals in comparison
to specific forms), and I should be tempted to look at this as a case of a very
small area, and consequently of very few individuals in comparison with
those on the land or in pure fresh-water; and hence less development
(odious word!) than on land or fresh-water. But here comes in your two-
edged sword! I should like much to see any paper on plants of brackish
water or on the edge of the sea; but I suppose such has never been
published.
Thanks about Nelumbium, for I think this was the very plant which from
the size of seed astonished me, and which A. De Candolle adduced as a
marvellous case of almost impossible transport. I now find to my surprise
that herons do feed sometimes on {illegible} fruit; and grebes on seeds of
Compositae.
Many thanks for offer of help about a grant for the Abstract; but I should
hope it would sell enough to pay expenses.
I am reading your letter and scribbling as I go on.
Your oak and chestnut case seems very curious; is it not the more so as
beeches have gone to, or come from the south? But I vehemently protest
against you or any one making such cases especial marvels, without you are
prepared to say why each species in any flora is twice or thrice, etc., rarer
than each other species which grows in the same soil. The more I think, the
more evident is it to me how utterly ignorant we are of the thousand
contingencies on which range, frequency, and extinction of each species
depend.
I have sometimes thought, from Edentata (70/5. No doubt a slip of the
pen for Monotremata.) and Marsupialia, that Australia retains a remnant of
the former and ancient state of the fauna of the world, and I suppose that
you are coming to some such conclusion for plants; but is not the relation
between the Cape and Australia too special for such views? I infer from
your writings that the relation is too special between Fuegia and Australia to
allow us to look at the resemblances in certain plants as the relics of
mundane resemblances. On the other hand, {have} not the Sandwich
Islands in the Northern Hemisphere some odd relations to Australia? When
we are dead and gone what a noble subject will be Geographical
Distribution!

You may say what you like, but you will never convince me that I do not
owe you ten times as much as you can owe me. Farewell, my dear Hooker. I
am sorry to hear that you are both unwell with influenza. Do not bother
yourself in answering anything in this, except your general impression on
the battle between N. and S.

CHAPTER 1.III.—EVOLUTION, 1859-1863.
LETTER 71. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 6th, 1859.
I this morning received your pleasant and friendly note of November
30th. The first part of my MS. is in Murray's hands to see if he likes to
publish it. There is no preface, but a short introduction, which must be read
by every one who reads my book. The second paragraph in the introduction
(71/1. "Origin of Species," Edition I., 1859, pages 1 and 2.) I have had
copied verbatim from my foul copy, and you will, I hope, think that I have
fairly noticed your paper in the "Linn. Journal." (71/2. "On the Tendency of
Species to form Varieties, and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species
by Natural Means of Selection." By Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell
Wallace. Communicated by Sir Charles Lyell and J.D. Hooker. "Journ.
Linn. Soc." Volume III., page 45, 1859. (Read July 1st, 1858.)) You must
remember that I am now publishing only an abstract, and I give no
references. I shall, of course, allude to your paper on distribution (71/3. "On
the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species" (A.R.
Wallace). "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XVI., page 184, 1855. The law
alluded to is thus stated by Wallace: "Every species has come into existence
coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species"
(loc. cit., page 186).); and I have added that I know from correspondence
that your explanation of your law is the same as that which I offer. You are
right, that I came to the conclusion that selection was the principle of
change from the study of domesticated productions; and then, reading
Malthus, I saw at once how to apply this principle. Geographical
distribution and geological relations of extinct to recent inhabitants of South
America first led me to the subject: especially the case of the Galapagos
Islands. I hope to go to press in the early part of next month. It will be a
small volume of about five hundred pages or so. I will of course send you a
copy. I forget whether I told you that Hooker, who is our best British
botanist and perhaps the best in the world, is a full convert, and is now
going immediately to publish his confession of faith; and I expect daily to
see proof-sheets. (71/4. "The Flora of Australia, etc., an Introductory Essay
to the Flora of Tasmania." London 1859.) Huxley is changed, and believes

in mutation of species: whether a convert to us, I do not quite know. We
shall live to see all the younger men converts. My neighbour and an
excellent naturalist, J. Lubbock, is an enthusiastic convert. I see that you are
doing great work in the Archipelago; and most heartily do I sympathise
with you. For God's sake take care of your health. There have been few
such noble labourers in the cause of Natural Science as you are.
P.S. You cannot tell how I admire your spirit, in the manner in which you
have taken all that was done about publishing all our papers. I had actually
written a letter to you, stating that I would not publish anything before you
had published. I had not sent that letter to the post when I received one from
Lyell and Hooker, urging me to send some MS. to them, and allow them to
act as they thought fair and honestly to both of us; and I did so.
(71/5. The following is the passage from the Introduction to the "Origin
of Species," referred to in the first paragraph of the above letter.)
"My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three
years more to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been
urged to publish this Abstract. I have more especially been induced to do
this, as Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the Natural History of the Malay
Archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions
that I have on the origin of species. Last year he sent to me a memoir on
this subject, with a request that I would forward it to Sir Charles Lyell, who
sent it to the Linnean Society, and it is published in the third volume of the
Journal of that Society. Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my
work—the latter having read my sketch of 1844—honoured me by thinking
it advisable to publish, with Mr. Wallace's excellent memoir, some brief
extracts from my manuscripts."
LETTER 72. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 3rd, 1859.
With respect to reversion, I have been raking up vague recollections of
vague facts; and the impression on my mind is rather more in favour of
reversion than it was when you were here.
In my abstract (72/1. "The Origin of Species.") I give only a paragraph
on the general case of reversion, though I enter in detail on some cases of
reversion of a special character. I have not as yet put all my facts on this
subject in mass, so can come to no definite conclusion. But as single
characters may revert, I must say that I see no improbability in several
reverting. As I do not believe any well-founded experiments or facts are

known, each must form his opinion from vague generalities. I think you
confound two rather distinct considerations; a variation arises from any
cause, and reversion is not opposed to this, but solely to its inheritance. Not
but what I believe what we must call perhaps a dozen distinct laws are all
struggling against each other in every variation which ever arises. To give
my impression, if I were forced to bet whether or not, after a hundred
generations of growth in a poor sandy soil, a cauliflower and red cabbage
would or would not revert to the same form, I must say I would rather stake
my money that they would. But in such a case the conditions of life are
changed (and here comes the question of direct influence of condition), and
there is to be no selection, the comparatively sudden effect of man's
selection are left to the free play of reversion.
In short, I dare not come to any conclusion without comparing all facts
which I have collected, and I do not think there are many.
Please do not say to any one that I thought my book on species would be
fairly popular and have a fairly remunerative sale (which was the height of
my ambition), for if it prove a dead failure it would make me the more
ridiculous.
LETTER 73. TO W.H. MILLER. Down, June 5th {1859}.
I thank you much for your letter. Had I seen the interest of my remark I
would have made many more measurements, though I did make several. I
stated the facts merely to give the general reader an idea of the thickness of
the walls. (73/1. The walls of bees' cells: see Letter 173.)
Especially if I had seen that the fact had any general bearing, I should
have stated that as far as I could measure, the walls are by no means
perfectly of the same thickness. Also I should have stated that the chief
difference is when the thickness of walls of the upper part of the hexagon
and of the pyramidal basal plates are contrasted. Will you oblige me by
looking with a strong lens at the bit of comb, brushing off with a knife the
upper thickened edges, and then compare, by eye alone, the thickness of the
walls there with the thickness of the basal plates, as seen in any cross
section. I should very much like to hear whether, even in this way, the
difference is not perceptible. It is generally thus perceptible by comparing
the thickness of the walls of the hexagon (if not taken very close to the
angle) near to the basal plates, where the comparison by eye is of course
easier. Your letter actually turned me sick with panic; from not seeing any

great importance {in the} fact, till I looked at my notes, I did not remember
that I made several measurements. I have now repeated the same
measurements, roughly with the same general results, but the difference, I
think, is hardly double.
I should not have mentioned the thickness of the basal plates at all, had I
not thought it would give an unfair notion of the thickness of the walls to
state the lesser measurements alone.
LETTER 74. TO W.H. MILLER. {1859}
I had no thought that you would measure the thickness of the walls of the
cells; but if you will, and allow me to give your measurements, it will be an
immense advantage. As it is no trouble, I send more specimens. If you
measure, please observe that I measured the thickness of the walls of the
hexagonal prisms not very near the base; but from your very interesting
remarks the lower part of the walls ought to be measured.
Thank you for the suggestion about how bees judge of angles and
distances. I will keep it in mind. It is a complete perplexity to me, and yet
certainly insects can rudely somehow judge of distance. There are special
difficulties on account of the gradation in size between the worker-scells
and the larger drone-cells. I am trying to test the case practically by getting
combs of different species, and of our own bee from different climates. I
have lately had some from the W. Indies of our common bee, but the cells
SEEM certainly to be larger; but they have not yet been carefully measured.
I will keep your suggestion in mind whenever I return to experiments on
living bees; but that will not be soon.
As you have been considering my little discussion in relation to Lord
Brougham (74/1. Lord Brougham's paper on "The Mathematical Structure
of Bees' Cells," read before the National Institute of France in May, 1858.),
and as I have been more vituperated for this part than for almost any other, I
should like just to tell you how I think the case stands. The discussion
viewed by itself is worth little more than the paper on which it is printed,
except in so far as it contains three or four certainly new facts. But to those
who are inclined to believe the general truth of the conclusion that species
and their instincts are slowly modified by what I call Natural Selection, I
think my discussion nearly removes a very great difficulty. I believe in its
truth chiefly from the existence of the Melipona, which makes a comb so
intermediate in structure between that of the humble and hive-bee, and

especially from the new and curious fact of the bees making smooth cups or
saucers when they excavated in a thick piece of wax, which saucers stood
so close that hexagons were built on their intersecting edges. And, lastly,
because when they excavated on a thin slip of wax, the excavation on both
sides of similar smooth basins was stopped, and flat planes left between the
nearly opposed basins. If my view were wholly false these cases would, I
think, never have occurred. Sedgwick and Co. may abuse me to their hearts'
content, but I shall as yet continue to think that mine is a rational
explanation (as far as it goes) of their method of work.
LETTER 75. TO W.H. MILLER.
Down, December 1st {1859}.
Some months ago you were so kind as to say you would measure the
thickness of the walls of the basal and side plates of the cell of the bee.
Could you find time to do so soon? Why I want it soon, is that I have lately
heard from Murray that he sold at his sale far more copies than he has of the
"Origin of Species," and that I must immediately prepare a new edition,
which I am now correcting. By the way, I hear from Murray that all the
attacks heaped on my book do not seem to have at all injured the sale,
which will make poor dear old Sedgwick groan. If the basal plates and
walls do differ considerably in thickness, as they certainly did in the one or
two cells which I measured without particular care (as I never thought the
point of any importance), will you tell me the bearing of the fact as simply
as you can, for the chance of one so stupid as I am in geometry being able
to understand?
Would the greater thickness of the basal plates and of the rim of the
hexagons be a good adaptation to carry the vertical weight of the cells filled
with honey and supporting clusters of living bees?
Will you endeavour to screw out time and grant me this favour?
P.S. If the result of your measurement of the thickness of the walls turns
out at all what I have asserted, would it not be worth while to write a little
bit of a paper on the subject of your former note; and "pluck" the bees if
they deserve this degradation? Many mathematicians seem to have thought
the subject worthy of attention. When the cells are full of honey and hang
vertically they have to support a great weight. Can the thicker basal plates
be a contrivance to give strength to the whole comb, with less consumption
of wax, than if all the sides of the hexagons were thickened?

This crude notion formerly crossed my mind; but of course it is beyond
me even to conjecture how the case would be.
A mathematician, Mr. Wright, has been writing on the geometry of bee-
cells in the United States in consequence of my book; but I can hardly
understand his paper. (75/1. Chauncey Wright, "Remarks on the
Architecture of Bees" ("Amer. Acad. Proc." IV., 1857-60, page 432.)
LETTER 76. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(76/1. The date of this letter is unfortunately doubtful, otherwise it would
prove that at an early date he was acquainted with Erasmus Darwin's views
on evolution, a fact which has not always been recognised. We can hardly
doubt that it was written in 1859, for at this time Mr. Huxley was collecting
facts about breeding for his lecture given at the Royal Institution on
February 10th, 1860, on "Species and Races and their Origin." See "Life
and Letters," II., page 281.)
Down {June?} 9 {1859?}.
If on the 11th you have half an hour to spare, you might like to see a very
good show of pigeons, and the enclosed card will admit you.
The history of error is quite unimportant, but it is curious to observe how
exactly and accurately my grandfather (in "Zoonomia," Volume I., page
504, 1794) gives Lamarck's theory. I will quote one sentence. Speaking of
birds' beaks, he says: "All which seem to have been gradually produced
during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to
supply the want of food, and to have been delivered to their posterity with
constant improvement of them for the purposes required." Lamarck
published "Hist. Zoolog." in 1809. The "Zoonomia" was translated into
many languages.
LETTER 77. TO C. LYELL. Down, 28 {June 1859}.
It is not worth while troubling you, but my conscience is uneasy at
having forgotten to thank you for your "Etna" (77/1. "On the Structure of
Lavas which have been consolidated on Steep Slopes, with remarks on the
Mode of Origin of Mount Etna, and on the Theory of 'Craters of Elevation'"
("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume CXLVIII., 1858, page 703).), which seems
to me a magnificent contribution to volcanic geology, and I should think
you might now rest on your oars in this department.

As soon as ever I can get a copy of my book (77/2. "The Origin of
Species," London, 1859.) ready, in some six weeks' or two months' time, it
shall be sent you; and if you approve of it, even to a moderate extent, it will
be the highest satisfaction which I shall ever receive for an amount of
labour which no one will ever appreciate.
LETTER 78. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(78/1. The reference in the following letter is to the proofs of Hooker's
"Australian Flora.")
Down, 28 {July 1859}.
The returned sheet is chiefly that which I received in MS. Parts seem to
me (though perhaps it may be forgetfulness) much improved, and I retain
my former impression that the whole discussion on the Australian flora is
admirably good and original. I know you will understand and not object to
my thus expressing my opinion (for one must form one) so presumptuously.
I have no criticisms, except perhaps I should like you somewhere to say,
when you refer to me, that you refer only to the notice in the "Linnean
Journal;" not that, on my deliberate word of honour, I expect that you will
think more favourably of the whole than of the suggestion in the "Journal."
I am far more than satisfied at what you say of my work; yet it would be as
well to avoid the appearance of your remarks being a criticism on my fuller
work.
I am very sorry to hear you are so hard-worked. I also get on very slowly,
and have hardly as yet finished half my volume...I returned on last Tuesday
from a week's hydropathy.
Take warning by me, and do not work too hard. For God's sake, think of
this.
It is dreadfully uphill work with me getting my confounded volume
finished.
I wish you well through all your labours. Adios.
LETTER 79. TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 29th {1859}.
This shall be such an extraordinary note as you have never received from
me, for it shall not contain one single question or request. I thank you for
your impression on my views. Every criticism from a good man is of value
to me. What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work will be
grievously hypothetical, and large parts by no means worthy of being called

induction, my commonest error being probably induction from too few
facts. I had not thought of your objection of my using the term "natural
selection" as an agent. I use it much as a geologist does the word
denudation—for an agent, expressing the result of several combined
actions. I will take care to explain, not merely by inference, what I mean by
the term; for I must use it, otherwise I should incessantly have to expand it
into some such (here miserably expressed) formula as the following: "The
tendency to the preservation (owing to the severe struggle for life to which
all organic beings at some time or generation are exposed) of any, the
slightest, variation in any part, which is of the slightest use or favourable to
the life of the individual which has thus varied; together with the tendency
to its inheritance." Any variation, which was of no use whatever to the
individual, would not be preserved by this process of "natural selection."
But I will not weary you by going on, as I do not suppose I could make my
meaning clearer without large expansion. I will only add one other
sentence: several varieties of sheep have been turned out together on the
Cumberland mountains, and one particular breed is found to succeed so
much better than all the others that it fairly starves the others to death. I
should here say that natural selection picks out this breed, and would tend
to improve it, or aboriginally to have formed it...
You speak of species not having any material base to rest on, but is this
any greater hardship than deciding what deserves to be called a variety, and
be designated by a Greek letter? When I was at systematic work, I know I
longed to have no other difficulty (great enough) than deciding whether the
form was distinct enough to deserve a name, and not to be haunted with
undefined and unanswerable questions whether it was a true species. What a
jump it is from a well-marked variety, produced by natural cause, to a
species produced by the separate act of the hand of God! But I am running
on foolishly. By the way, I met the other day Phillips, the palaeontologist,
and he asked me, "How do you define a species?" I answered, "I cannot."
Whereupon he said, "at last I have found out the only true definition,—any
form which has ever had a specific name!"...
LETTER 80. TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, October 31st {1859}.
That you may not misunderstand how far I go with Pallas and his many
disciples I should like to add that, though I believe that our domestic dogs
have descended from several wild forms, and though I must think that the

sterility, which they would probably have evinced, if crossed before being
domesticated, has been eliminated, yet I go but a very little way with Pallas
& Co. in their belief in the importance of the crossing and blending of the
aboriginal stocks. (80/1. "With our domesticated animals, the various races
when crossed together are quite fertile; yet in many cases they are
descended from two or more wild species. From this fact we must conclude
either that the aboriginal parent-species at first produced perfectly fertile
hybrids, or that the hybrids subsequently reared under domestication
became quite fertile. This latter alternative, which was first propounded by
Pallas, seems by far the most probable, and can, indeed, hardly be doubted"
("Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 240).) You will see this briefly put in
the first chapter. Generally, with respect to crossing, the effects may be
diametrically opposite. If you cross two very distinct races, you may make
(not that I believe such has often been made) a third and new intermediate
race; but if you cross two exceedingly close races, or two slightly different
individuals of the same race, then in fact you annul and obliterate the
difference. In this latter way I believe crossing is all-important, and now for
twenty years I have been working at flowers and insects under this point of
view. I do not like Hooker's terms, centripetal and centrifugal (80/2.
Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," pages viii. and ix.):
they remind me of Forbes' bad term of Polarity. (80/3. Forbes, "On the
Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of Organised Beings in
Time."—"R. Institution Proc." I., 1851-54.)
I daresay selection by man would generally work quicker than Natural
Selection; but the important distinction between them is, that man can
scarcely select except external and visible characters, and secondly, he
selects for his own good; whereas under nature, characters of all kinds are
selected exclusively for each creature's own good, and are well exercised;
but you will find all this in Chapter IV.
Although the hound, greyhound, and bull-dog may possibly have
descended from three distinct stocks, I am convinced that their present great
amount of difference is mainly due to the same causes which have made the
breeds of pigeons so different from each other, though these breeds of
pigeons have all descended from one wild stock; so that the Pallasian
doctrine I look at as but of quite secondary importance.

In my bigger book I have explained my meaning fully; whether I have in
the Abstract I cannot remember.
LETTER 81. TO C. LYELL. {December 5th, 1859.}
I forget whether you take in the "Times;" for the chance of your not doing
so, I send the enclosed rich letter. (81/1. See the "Times," December 1st and
December 5th, 1859: two letters signed "Senex," dealing with "Works of
Art in the Drift.") It is, I am sure, by Fitz-Roy...It is a pity he did not add his
theory of the extinction of Mastodon, etc., from the door of the Ark being
made too small. (81/2. A postscript to this letter, here omitted, is published
in the "Life and Letters," II., page 240.)
LETTER 82. FRANCIS GALTON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 42,
Rutland Gate, London, S.W., December 9th, 1859.
Pray let me add a word of congratulation on the completion of your
wonderful volume, to those which I am sure you will have received from
every side. I have laid it down in the full enjoyment of a feeling that one
rarely experiences after boyish days, of having been initiated into an
entirely new province of knowledge, which, nevertheless, connects itself
with other things in a thousand ways. I hear you are engaged on a second
edition. There is a trivial error in page 68, about rhinoceroses (82/1. Down
(loc. cit.) says that neither the elephant nor the rhinoceros is destroyed by
beasts of prey. Mr. Galton wrote that the wild dogs hunt the young
rhinoceros and "exhaust them to death; they pursue them all day long,
tearing at their ears, the only part their teeth can fasten on." The reference to
the rhinoceros is omitted in later editions of the "Origin."), which I thought
I might as well point out, and have taken advantage of the same opportunity
to scrawl down half a dozen other notes, which may, or may not, be
worthless to you.
(83/1. The three next letters refer to Huxley's lecture on Evolution, given
at the Royal Institution on February 10th, 1860, of which the peroration is
given in "Life and Letters," II., page 282, together with some letters on the
subject.)
LETTER 83. TO T.H. HUXLEY. November 25th {1859}.
I rejoice beyond measure at the lecture. I shall be at home in a fortnight,
when I could send you splendid folio coloured drawings of pigeons. Would
this be in time? If not, I think I could write to my servants and have them

sent to you. If I do NOT hear I shall understand that about fifteen or sixteen
days will be in time.
I have had a kind yet slashing letter against me from poor dear old
Sedgwick, "who has laughed till his sides ached at my book."
Phillips is cautious, but decidedly, I fear, hostile. Hurrah for the Lecture
—it is grand!
LETTER 84. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 13th {1859}.
I have got fine large drawings (84/1. For Mr. Huxley's R.I. lecture.) of the
Pouter, Carrier, and Tumbler; I have only drawings in books of Fantails,
Barbs, and Scanderoon Runts. If you had them, you would have a grand
display of extremes of diversity. Will they pay at the Royal Institution for
copying on a large size drawings of these birds? I could lend skulls of a
Carrier and a Tumbler (to show the great difference) for the same purpose,
but it would not probably be worth while.
I have been looking at my MS. What you want I believe is about
hybridism and breeding. The chapter on hybridism is in a pretty good state
—about 150 folio pages with notes and references on the back. My first
chapter on breeding is in too bad and imperfect a state to send; but my
discussion on pigeons (in about 100 folio pages) is in a pretty good state. I
am perfectly convinced that you would never have patience to read such
volumes of MS. I speak now in the palace of truth, and pray do you: if you
think you would read them I will send them willingly up by my servant, or
bring them myself next week. But I have no copy, and I never could
possibly replace them; and without you really thought that you would use
them, I had rather not risk them. But I repeat I will willingly bring them, if
you think you would have the vast patience to use them. Please let me hear
on this subject, and whether I shall send the book with small drawings of
three other breeds or skulls. I have heard a rumour that Busk is on our side
in regard to species. Is this so? It would be very good.
LETTER 85. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 16th {1859}.
I thank you for your very pleasant and amusing note and invitation to
dinner, which I am sorry to say I cannot accept. I shall come up (stomach
willing) on Thursday for Phil. Club dinner, and return on Saturday, and I am
engaged to my brother for Friday. But I should very much like to call at the
Museum on Friday or Saturday morning and see you. Would you let me
have one line either here or at 57, Queen Anne Street, to say at what hour

you generally come to the Museum, and whether you will be probably there
on Friday or Saturday? Even if you are at the Club, it will be a mere chance
if we sit near each other.
I will bring up the articles on Thursday afternoon, and leave them under
charge of the porter at the Museum. They will consist of large drawings of a
Pouter, a Carrier, and rather smaller drawings of some sub-varieties (which
breed nearly true) of short-faced Tumblers. Also a small drawing of
Scanderoon, a kind of Runt, and a very remarkable breed. Also a book with
very moderately good drawings of Fantail and Barb, but I very much doubt
whether worth the trouble of enlarging.
Also a box (for Heaven's sake, take care!) with a skull of Carrier and
short-faced Tumbler; also lower jaws (largest size) of Runt, middle size of
Rock-pigeon, and the broad one of Barb. The form of ramus of jaw differs
curiously in these jaws.
Also MS. of hybridism and pigeons, which will just weary you to death. I
will call myself for or send a servant for the MS. and bones whenever you
have done with them; but do not hurry.
You have hit on the exact plan, which, on the advice of Lyell, Murray,
etc., I mean to follow—viz., bring out separate volumes in detail—and I
shall begin with domestic productions; but I am determined to try and
{work} very slowly, so that, if possible, I may keep in a somewhat better
state of health. I had not thought of illustrations; that is capital advice.
Farewell, my good and admirable agent for the promulgation of damnable
heresies!
LETTER 86. TO L. HORNER. Down, December 23rd {1859}.
I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your extremely kind letter. I
am very much pleased that you approve of my book, and that you are going
to pay me the extraordinary compliment of reading it twice. I fear that it is
tough reading, but it is beyond my powers to make the subject clearer. Lyell
would have done it admirably.
You must enjoy being a gentlemen at your ease, and I hear that you have
returned with ardour to work at the Geological Society. We hope in the
course of the winter to persuade Mrs. Horner and yourself and daughters to
pay us a visit. Ilkley did me extraordinary good during the latter part of my
stay and during my first week at home; but I have gone back latterly to my
bad ways, and fear I shall never be decently well and strong.

P.S.—When any of your party write to Mildenhall I should be much
obliged if you would say to Bunbury that I hope he will not forget,
whenever he reads my book, his promise to let me know what he thinks
about it; for his knowledge is so great and accurate that every one must
value his opinions highly. I shall be quite contented if his belief in the
immutability of species is at all staggered.
LETTER 87. TO C. LYELL.
(87/1. In the "Origin of Species" a section of Chapter X. is devoted to
"The succession of the same types within the same areas, during the late
Tertiary period" (Edition I., page 339). Mr. Darwin wrote as follows: "Mr.
Clift many years ago showed that the fossil mammals from the Australian
caves were closely allied to the living marsupials of that continent." After
citing other instances illustrating the same agreement between fossil and
recent types, Mr. Darwin continues: "I was so much impressed with these
facts that I strongly insisted, in 1839 and 1845, on this 'law of the
succession of types,' on 'this wonderful relationship in the same continent
between the dead and the living.' Professor Owen has subsequently
extended the same generalisation to the mammals of the Old World.")
Down, {December} 27th {1859}.
Owen wrote to me to ask for the reference to Clift. As my own notes for
the late chapters are all in chaos, I bethought me who was the most
trustworthy man of all others to look for references, and I answered myself,
"Of course Lyell." In the {"Principles of Geology"}, edition of 1833,
Volume III., chapter xi., page 144, you will find the reference to Clift in the
"Edinburgh New Phil Journal," No. XX., page 394. (87/2. The correct
reference to Clift's "Report" on fossil bones from New Holland is
"Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," 1831, page 394.) You will also find that
you were greatly struck with the fact itself (87/3. This refers to the
discovery of recent and fossil species of animals in an Australian cave-
breccia. Mr. Clift is quoted as having identified one of the bones, which was
much larger than the rest, as that of a hippopotamus.), which I had quite
forgotten. I copied the passage, and sent it to Owen. Why I gave in some
detail references to my own work is that Owen (not the first occasion with
respect to myself and others) quietly ignores my having ever generalised on
the subject, and makes a great fuss on more than one occasion at having
discovered the law of succession. In fact, this law, with the Galapagos

distribution, first turned my mind on the origin of species. My own
references are {to the "Naturalist's Voyage"}:

Large 8vo, Murray,
Edition 1839 Edition 1845

Page 210 Page 173 On succession.

Page 153 Pages 131-32 On splitting up of old
geographical provinces.

Long before Owen published I had in MS. worked out the succession of
types in the Old World (as I remember telling Sedgwick, who of course
disbelieved it).
Since receiving your last letter on Hooker, I have read his introduction as
far as page xxiv (87/4. "On the Flora of Australia, etc.; being an
Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania": London, 1859.), where the
Australian flora begins, and this latter part I liked most in the proofs. It is a
magnificent essay. I doubt slightly about some assertions, or rather should
have liked more facts—as, for instance, in regard to species varying most
on the confines of their range. Naturally I doubt a little his remarks about
divergence (87/5. "Variation is effected by graduated changes; and the
tendency of varieties, both in nature and under cultivation, when further
varying, is rather to depart more and more widely from the original type
than to revert to it." On the margin Darwin wrote: "Without selection
doubtful" (loc. cit., page viii).), and about domestic races being produced
under nature without selection. It would take much to persuade me that a
Pouter Pigeon, or a Carrier, etc., could have been produced by the mere
laws of variation without long continued selection, though each little
enlargement of crop and beak are due to variation. I demur greatly to his
comparison of the products of sinking and rising islands (87/6. "I venture to
anticipate that a study of the vegetation of the islands with reference to the
peculiarities of the generic types on the one hand, and of the geological
conditions (whether as rising or sinking) on the other, may, in the present
state of our knowledge, advance other subjects of distribution and variation
considerably" (loc. cit., page xv).); in the Indian Ocean he compares
exclusively many rising volcanic and sinking coral islands. The latter have a
most peculiar soil, and are excessively small in area, and are tenanted by
very few species; moreover, such low coral islands have probably been
often, during their subsidence, utterly submerged, and restocked by plants

from other islands. In the Pacific Ocean the floras of all the best cases are
unknown. The comparison ought to have been exclusively between rising
and fringed volcanic islands, and sinking and encircled volcanic islands. I
have read Naudin (87/7. Naudin, "Revue Horticole," 1852?.), and Hooker
agrees that he does not even touch on my views.
LETTER 88. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. {1859 or 1860.}
I have had another talk with Bentham, who is greatly agitated by your
book: evidently the stern, keen intellect is aroused, and he finds that it is too
late to halt between two opinions. How it will go we shall see. I am
intensely interested in what we shall come to, and never broach the subject
to him. I finished the geological evidence chapters yesterday; they are very
fine and very striking, but I cannot see they are such forcible objections as
you still hold them to be. I would say that you still in your secret soul
underrate the imperfection of the Geological Record, though no language
can be stronger or arguments fairer and sounder against it. Of course I am
influenced by Botany, and the conviction that we have not in a fossilised
condition a fraction of the plants that have existed, and that not a fraction of
those we have are recognisable specifically. I never saw so clearly put the
fact that it is not intermediates between existing species we want, but
between these and the unknown tertium quid.
You certainly make a hobby of Natural Selection, and probably ride it too
hard; that is a necessity of your case. If the improvement of the creation-by-
variation doctrine is conceivable, it will be by unburthening your theory of
Natural Selection, which at first sight seems overstrained—i.e., to account
for too much. I think, too, that some of your difficulties which you override
by Natural Selection may give way before other explanations. But, oh Lord!
how little we do know and have known to be so advanced in knowledge by
one theory. If we thought ourselves knowing dogs before you revealed
Natural Selection, what d—d ignorant ones we must surely be now we do
know that law.
I hear you may be at the Club on Thursday. I hope so. Huxley will not be
there, so do not come on that ground.
LETTER 89. TO T.H. HUXLEY. January 1st {1860}.
I write one line merely to thank you for your pleasant note, and to say
that I will keep your secret. I will shake my head as mysteriously as Lord
Burleigh. Several persons have asked me who wrote that "most remarkable

article" in the "Times." (89/1. The "Times," December 26th, 1859, page 8.
The opening paragraphs were by one of the staff of the "Times." See "Life
and Letters," II., page 255, for Mr. Huxley's interesting account of his share
in the matter.) As a cat may look at a king, so I have said that I strongly
suspected you. X was so sharp that the first sentence revealed the
authorship. The Z's (God save the mark) thought it was Owen's! You may
rely on it that it has made a deep impression, and I am heartily glad that the
subject and I owe you this further obligation. But for God's sake, take care
of your health; remember that the brain takes years to rest, whilst the
muscles take only hours. There is poor Dana, to whom I used to preach by
letter, writes to me that my prophecies are come true: he is in Florence quite
done up, can read nothing and write nothing, and cannot talk for half an
hour. I noticed the "naughty sentence" (89/2. Mr. Huxley, after speaking of
the rudimental teeth of the whale, of rudimental jaws in insects which never
bite, and rudimental eyes in blind animals, goes on: "And we would remind
those who, ignorant of the facts, must be moved by authority, that no one
has asserted the incompetence of the doctrine of final causes, in its
application to physiology and anatomy, more strongly than our own
eminent anatomist, Professor Owen, who, speaking of such cases, says ("On
the Nature of Limbs," pages 39, 40), 'I think it will be obvious that the
principle of final adaptations fails to satisfy all the conditions of the
problem.'"—"The Times," December 26th, 1859.) about Owen, though my
wife saw its bearing first. Farewell you best and worst of men!
That sentence about the bird and the fish dinners charmed us. Lyell wrote
to me—style like yours.
Have you seen the slashing article of December 26th in the "Daily
News," against my stealing from my "master," the author of the "Vestiges?"
LETTER 90. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. {Undated}
How I should like to know whether Milne Edwards has read the copy
which I sent him, and whether he thinks I have made a pretty good case on
our side of the question. There is no naturalist in the world for whose
opinion I have so profound a respect. Of course I am not so silly as to
expect to change his opinion.
LETTER 91. TO C. LYELL.
(91/1. The date of this letter is doubtful; but as it evidently refers to the
2nd edition of the "Origin," which appeared on January 7th, 1860, we

believe that December 9th, 1859, is right. The letter of Sedgwick's is
doubtless that given in the "Life and Letters," II., page 247; it is there dated
December 24th, 1859, but from other evidence it was probably written on
November 24th)
{December?} 9th {1859}.
I send Sedgwick's letter; it is terribly muddled, and really the first page
seems almost childish.
I am sadly over-worked, so will not write to you. I have worked in a
number of your invaluable corrections—indeed, all as far as time permits. I
infer from a letter from Huxley that Ramsay (91/2. See a letter to Huxley,
November 27th, 1859, "Life and Letters," II., page 282.) is a convert, and I
am extremely glad to get pure geologists, as they will be very few. Many
thanks for your very pleasant note. What pleasure you have given me. I
believe I should have been miserable had it not been for you and a few
others, for I hear threatening of attacks which I daresay will be severe
enough. But I am sure that I can now bear them.
LETTER 92. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(92/1. The point here discussed is one to which Mr. Huxley attached
great, in our opinion too great, importance.)
Down, January 11th {1860?}.
I fully agree that the difficulty is great, and might be made much of by a
mere advocate. Will you oblige me by reading again slowly from pages 267
to 272. (92/2. The reference is to the "Origin," Edition I.: the section on
"The Fertility of Varieties when crossed, and of their Mongrel Offspring"
occupies pages 267-72.) I may add to what is there said, that it seems to me
quite hopeless to attempt to explain why varieties are not sterile, until we
know the precise cause of sterility in species.
Reflect for a moment on how small and on what very peculiar causes the
unequal reciprocity of fertility in the same two species must depend. Reflect
on the curious case of species more fertile with foreign pollen than their
own. Reflect on many cases which could be given, and shall be given in my
larger book (independently of hybridity) of very slight changes of
conditions causing one species to be quite sterile and not affecting a closely
allied species. How profoundly ignorant we are on the intimate relation
between conditions of life and impaired fertility in pure species!

The only point which I might add to my short discussion on this subject,
is that I think it probable that the want of adaptation to uniform conditions
of life in our domestic varieties has played an important part in preventing
their acquiring sterility when crossed. For the want of uniformity, and
changes in the conditions of life, seem the only cause of the elimination of
sterility (when crossed) under domestication. (92/3. The meaning which we
attach to this obscure sentence is as follows: Species in a state of nature are
closely adapted to definite conditions of life, so that the sexual constitution
of species A is attuned, as it were, to a condition different from that to
which B is attuned, and this leads to sterility. But domestic varieties are not
strictly adapted by Natural Selection to definite conditions, and thus have
less specialised sexual constitutions.) This elimination, though admitted by
many authors, rests on very slight evidence, yet I think is very probably
true, as may be inferred from the case of dogs. Under nature it seems
improbable that the differences in the reproductive constitution, on which
the sterility of any two species when crossed depends, can be acquired
directly by Natural Selection; for it is of no advantage to the species. Such
differences in reproductive constitution must stand in correlation with some
other differences; but how impossible to conjecture what these are! Reflect
on the case of the variations of Verbascum, which differ in no other respect
whatever besides the fluctuating element of the colour of the flower, and yet
it is impossible to resist Gartner's evidence, that this difference in the colour
does affect the mutual fertility of the varieties.
The whole case seems to me far too mysterious to rest (92/4. The word
"rest" seems to be used in place of "to serve as a foundation for.") a valid
attack on the theory of modification of species, though, as you say, it offers
excellent ground for a mere advocate.
I am surprised, considering how ignorant we are on very many points,
{that} more weak parts in my book have not as yet been pointed out to me.
No doubt many will be. H.C. Watson founds his objection in MS. on there
being no limit to infinite diversification of species: I have answered this, I
think, satisfactorily, and have sent attack and answer to Lyell and Hooker. If
this seems to you a good objection, I would send papers to you. Andrew
Murray "disposes of" the whole theory by an ingenious difficulty from the
distribution of blind cave insects (92/5. See "Life and Letters, Volume II.,
page 265. The reference here is to Murray's address before the Botanical
Society, Edinburgh. Mr. Darwin seems to have read Murray's views only in

a separate copy reprinted from the "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." There is some
confusion about the date of the paper; the separate copy is dated January
16th, while in the volume of the "Proc. R. Soc." it is February 20th. In the
"Life and Letters," II., page 261 it is erroneously stated that these are two
different papers.); but it can, I think, be fairly answered.
LETTER 93. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, {February} 2nd {1860}.
I have had this morning a letter from old Bronn (93/1. See "Life and
Letters, II., page 277.) (who, to my astonishment, seems slightly staggered
by Natural Selection), and he says a publisher in Stuttgart is willing to
publish a translation, and that he, Bronn, will to a certain extent
superintend. Have you written to Kolliker? if not, perhaps I had better close
with this proposal—what do you think? If you have written, I must wait,
and in this case will you kindly let me hear as soon as you hear from
Kolliker?
My poor dear friend, you will curse the day when you took up the
"general agency" line; but really after this I will not give you any more
trouble.
Do not forget the three tickets for us for your lecture, and the ticket for
Baily, the poulterer.
Old Bronn has published in the "Year-book for Mineralogy" a notice of
the "Origin" (93/2. "Neues Jahrb. fur Min." 1860, page 112.); and says he
has himself published elsewhere a foreboding of the theory!
LETTER 94. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 14th {1860}.
I succeeded in persuading myself for twenty-four hours that Huxley's
lecture was a success. (94/1. At the Royal Institution. See "Life and
Letters," II., page 282.) Parts were eloquent and good, and all very bold;
and I heard strangers say, "What a good lecture!" I told Huxley so; but I
demurred much to the time wasted in introductory remarks, especially to his
making it appear that sterility was a clear and manifest distinction of
species, and to his not having even alluded to the more important parts of
the subject. He said that he had much more written out, but time failed.
After conversation with others and more reflection, I must confess that as
an exposition of the doctrine the lecture seems to me an entire failure. I
thank God I did not think so when I saw Huxley; for he spoke so kindly and
magnificently of me, that I could hardly have endured to say what I now
think. He gave no just idea of Natural Selection. I have always looked at the

doctrine of Natural Selection as an hypothesis, which, if it explained several
large classes of facts, would deserve to be ranked as a theory deserving
acceptance; and this, of course, is my own opinion. But, as Huxley has
never alluded to my explanation of classification, morphology, embryology,
etc., I thought he was thoroughly dissatisfied with all this part of my book.
But to my joy I find it is not so, and that he agrees with my manner of
looking at the subject; only that he rates higher than I do the necessity of
Natural Selection being shown to be a vera causa always in action. He tells
me he is writing a long review in the "Westminster." It was really provoking
how he wasted time over the idea of a species as exemplified in the horse,
and over Sir J. Hall's old experiment on marble. Murchison was very civil
to me over my book after the lecture, in which he was disappointed. I have
quite made up my mind to a savage onslaught; but with Lyell, you, and
Huxley, I feel confident we are right, and in the long run shall prevail. I do
not think Asa Gray has quite done you justice in the beginning of the review
of me. (94/2. "Review of Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species by
means of Natural Selection," by "A.G." ("Amer. Jour. Sci." Volume XXIX.,
page 153, 1860). In a letter to Asa Gray on February 18th, 1860, Darwin
writes: "Your review seems to me admirable; by far the best which I have
read." ("Life and Letters," II., 1887, page 286.) The review seemed to me
very good, but I read it very hastily.
LETTER 95. TO C. LYELL. Down, {February} 18th {1860}.
I send by this post Asa Gray, which seems to me very good, with the
stamp of originality on it. Also Bronn's "Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie." (95/1.
See Letter 93.)
The united intellect of my family has vainly tried to make it out. I never
tried such confoundedly hard german; nor does it seem worth the labour. He
sticks to Priestley's Green Matter, and seems to think that till it can be
shown how life arises it is no good showing how the forms of life arise.
This seems to me about as logical (comparing very great things with little)
as to say it was no use in Newton showing the laws of attraction of gravity
and the consequent movement of the planets, because he could not show
what the attraction of gravity is.
The expression "Wahl der Lebens-Weise" (95/2. "Die fruchtbarste und
allgemeinste Ursache der Varietaten-Bildung ist jedoch die Wahl der
Lebens-Weise" (loc. cit., page 112).) makes me doubt whether B.

understands what I mean by Natural Selection, as I have told him. He says
(if I understand him) that you ought to be on the same side with me.
P.S. Sunday afternoon.—I have kept back this to thank you for your
letter, with much news, received this morning. My conscience is uneasy at
the time you waste in amusing and interesting me. I was very curious to
hear about Phillips. The review in the "Annals" is, as I was convinced, by
Wollaston, for I have had a very cordial letter from him this morning. (95/3.
A bibliographical Notice "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural
Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
("Annals and Mag." Volume V., pages 132-43, 1860). The notice is not
signed. Referring to the article, in a letter to Lyell, February 15th, 1860,
Darwin writes: "I am perfectly convinced...that the review in the "Annals"
is by Wollaston; no one else in the world would have used so many
parentheses" ("Life and Letters," II., page 284).)
I send by this post an attack in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" by Harvey (a
first-rate botanist, as you probably know). (95/4. In the "Gardeners'
Chronicle" of February 18th, 1860, W.H. Harvey described a case of
monstrosity in Begonia frigida, which he argued was hostile to the theory of
Natural Selection. The passage about Harvey's attack was published in the
"Life and Letters," II., page 275.) It seems to me rather strange; he assumes
the permanence of monsters, whereas monsters are generally sterile, and not
often inheritable. But grant his case, it comes {to this}, that I have been too
cautious in not admitting great and sudden variations. Here again comes in
the mischief of my abstract. In fuller MS. I have discussed the parallel case
of a normal fish like a monstrous gold-fish.
I end my discussion by doubting, because all cases of monstrosities
which resemble normal structures which I could find were not in allied
groups. Trees like Aspicarpa (95/5. Aspicarpa, an American genus of
Malpighiaceae, is quoted in the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 367) as an
illustration of Linnaeus' aphorism that the characters do not give the genus,
but the genus gives the characters. During several years' cultivation in
France Aspicarpa produced only degraded flowers, which differed in many
of the most important points of structure from the proper type of the order;
but it was recognised by M. Richard that the genus should be retained
among the Malpighiaceae. "This case," adds Darwin, "well illustrates the
spirit of our classification."), with flowers of two kinds (in the "Origin"),

led me also to speculate on the same subject; but I could find only one
doubtfully analogous case of species having flowers like the degraded or
monstrous flowers. Harvey does not see that if only a few (as he supposes)
of the seedlings inherited being monstrosities, Natural Selection would be
necessary to select and preserve them. You had better return the "Gardeners'
Chronicle," etc., to my brother's. The case of Begonia (95/6. Harvey's
criticism was answered by Sir J.D. Hooker in the following number of the
"Gardeners' Chronicle" (February 25th, 1860, page 170).) in itself is very
curious; I am tempted to answer the notice, but I will refrain, for there
would be no end to answers.
With respect to your objection of a multitude of still living simple forms,
I have not discussed it anywhere in the "Origin," though I have often
thought it over. What you say about progress being only occasional and
retrogression not uncommon, I agree to; only that in the animal kingdom I
greatly doubt about retrogression being common. I have always put it to
myself—What advantage can we see in an infusory animal, or an intestinal
worm, or coral polypus, or earthworm being highly developed? If no
advantage, they would not become highly developed: not but what all these
animals have very complex structures (except infusoria), and they may well
be higher than the animals which occupied similar places in the economy of
nature before the Silurian epoch. There is a blind snake with the
appearances and, in some respects, habits of earthworms; but this blind
snake does not tend, as far as we can see, to replace and drive out worms. I
think I must in a future edition discuss a few more such points, and will
introduce this and H.C. Watson's objection about the infinite number of
species and the general rise in organisation. But there is a directly opposite
objection to yours which is very difficult to answer—viz. how at the first
start of life, when there were only the simplest organisms, how did any
complication of organisation profit them? I can only answer that we have
not facts enough to guide any speculation on the subject.
With respect to Lepidosiren, Ganoid fishes, perhaps Ornithorhynchus, I
suspect, as stated in the "Origin," (95/7. "Origin of Species" (Edition VI.),
page 83.), that they have been preserved, from inhabiting fresh-water and
isolated parts of the world, in which there has been less competition and
less rapid progress in Natural Selection, owing to the fewness of individuals
which can inhabit small areas; and where there are few individuals variation
at most must be slower. There are several allusions to this notion in the

"Origin," as under Amblyopsis, the blind cave-fish (95/8. "Origin," page
112.), and under Heer (95/9. "Origin," page 83.) about Madeira plants
resembling the fossil and extinct plants of Europe.
LETTER 96. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, March 5th {1860?}.
I am much obliged for your long and interesting letter. You have indeed
good right to speak confidently about the habits of wild birds and animals;
for I should think no one beside yourself has ever sported in Spitzbergen
and Southern Africa. It is very curious and interesting that you should have
arrived at the conclusion that so-called "Natural Selection" had been
efficient in giving their peculiar colours to our grouse. I shall probably use
your authority on the similar habits of our grouse and the Norwegian
species.
I am particularly obliged for your very curious fact of the effect produced
by the introduction of the lowland grouse on the wildness of the grouse in
your neighbourhood. It is a very striking instance of what crossing will do
in affecting the character of a breed. Have you ever seen it stated in any
sporting work that game has become wilder in this country? I wish I could
get any sort of proof of the fact, for your explanation seems to me equally
ingenious and probable. I have myself witnessed in South America a nearly
parallel {case} with that which you mention in regard to the reindeer in
Spitzbergen, with the Cervus campestris of La Plata. It feared neither man
nor the sound of shot of a rifle, but was terrified at the sight of a man on
horseback; every one in that country always riding. As you are so great a
sportsman, perhaps you will kindly look to one very trifling point for me, as
my neighbours here think it too absurd to notice—namely, whether the feet
of birds are dirty, whether a few grains of dirt do not adhere occasionally to
their feet. I especially want to know how this is in the case of birds like
herons and waders, which stalk in the mud. You will guess that this relates
to dispersal of seeds, which is one of my greatest difficulties. My health is
very indifferent, and I am seldom able to attend the scientific meetings, but
I sincerely hope that I may some time have the pleasure of meeting you.
Pray accept my cordial thanks for your very kind letter.
LETTER 97. TO G.H.K. THWAITES. Down, March 21st {1860}.
I thank you very sincerely for your letter, and am much pleased that you
go a little way with me. You will think it presumptuous, but I am well
convinced from my own mental experience that if you keep the subject at

all before your mind you will ultimately go further. The present volume is a
mere abstract, and there are great omissions. One main one, which I have
rectified in the foreign editions, is an explanation (which has satisfied Lyell,
who made the same objection with you) why many forms do not progress or
advance (and I quite agree about some retrograding). I have also a MS.
discussion on beauty; but do you really suppose that for instance
Diatomaceae were created beautiful that man, after millions of generations,
should admire them through the microscope? (97/1. Thwaites (1811-82)
published several papers on the Diatomaceae ("On Conjugation in the
Diatomaceae," "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XX., 1847, pages 9-11,
343-4; "Further Observations on the Diatomaceae," loc. cit., 1848, page
161). See "Life and Letters" II., page 292.) I should attribute most of such
structures to quite unknown laws of growth; and mere repetition of parts is
to our eyes one main element of beauty. When any structure is of use (and I
can show what curiously minute particulars are often of highest use), I can
see with my prejudiced eyes no limit to the perfection of the coadaptations
which could be effected by Natural Selection. I rather doubt whether you
see how far, as it seems to me, the argument for homology and embryology
may be carried. I do not look at this as mere analogy. I would as soon
believe that fossil shells were mere mockeries of real shells as that the same
bones in the foot of a dog and wing of a bat, or the similar embryo of
mammal and bird, had not a direct signification, and that the signification
can be unity of descent or nothing. But I venture to repeat how much
pleased I am that you go some little way with me. I find a number of
naturalists do the same, and as their halting-places are various, and I must
think arbitrary, I believe they will all go further. As for changing at once
one's opinion, I would not value the opinion of a man who could do so; it
must be a slow process. (97/2. Darwin wrote to Woodward in regard to the
"Origin": "It may be a vain and silly thing to say, but I believe my book
must be read twice carefully to be fully understood. You will perhaps think
it by no means worth the labour.") Thank you for telling me about the
Lantana (97/3. An exotic species of Lantana (Verbenaceae) grows
vigorously in Ceylon, and is described as frequently making its appearance
after the firing of the low-country forests (see H.H.W. Pearson, "The
Botany of the Ceylon Patanas," "Journal Linn. Soc." Volume XXXIV., page
317, 1899). No doubt Thwaites' letter to Darwin referred to the spreading of
the introduced Lantana, comparable to that of the cardoon in La Plata and

of other plants mentioned by Darwin in the "Origin of Species" (Edition
VI., page 51).), and I should at any time be most grateful for any
information which you think would be of use to me. I hope that you will
publish a list of all naturalised plants in Ceylon, as far as known, carefully
distinguishing those confined to cultivated soils alone. I feel sure that this
most important subject has been greatly undervalued.
LETTER 98. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(98/1. The reference here is to the review on the "Origin of Species"
generally believed to be by the late Sir R. Owen, and published in the April
number of the "Edinburgh Review," 1860. Owen's biographer is silent on
the subject, and prints, without comment, the following passage in an
undated letter from Sedgwick to Owen: "Do you know who was the author
of the article in the "Edinburgh" on the subject of Darwin's theory? On the
whole, I think it very good. I once suspected that you must have had a hand
in it, and I then abandoned that thought. I have not read it with any care"
(Owen's "Life," Volume II., page 96).
April 9th {1860}.
I never saw such an amount of misrepresentation. At page 530 (98/2.
"Lasting and fruitful conclusions have, indeed, hitherto been based only on
the possession of knowledge; now we are called upon to accept an
hypothesis on the plea of want of knowledge. The geological record, it is
averred, is so imperfect!"—"Edinburgh Review," CXI., 1860, page 530.) he
says we are called on to accept the hypothesis on the plea of ignorance,
whereas I think I could not have made it clearer that I admit the
imperfection of the Geological Record as a great difficulty.
The quotation (98/3. "We are appealed to, or at least 'the young and rising
naturalists with plastic minds,* {On the Nature of the Limbs, page 482} are
adjured." It will be seen that the inverted comma after "naturalists" is
omitted; the asterisk referring, in a footnote (here placed in square
brackets), to page 482 of the "Origin," seems to have been incorrectly
assumed by Mr. Darwin to show the close of the quotation.—Ibid., page
512.) on page 512 of the "Review" about "young and rising naturalists with
plastic minds," attributed to "nature of limbs," is a false quotation, as I do
not use the words "plastic minds."
At page 501 (98/4. The passage ("Origin," Edition I., page 483) begins,
"But do they really believe...," and shows clearly that the author considers

such a belief all but impossible.) the quotation is garbled, for I only ask
whether naturalists believe about elemental atoms flashing, etc., and he
changes it into that I state that they do believe.
At page 500 (98/5. "All who have brought the transmutation speculation
to the test of observed facts and ascertained powers in organic life, and have
published the results, usually adverse to such speculations, are set down by
Mr. Darwin as 'curiously illustrating the blindness of preconceived
opinion.'" The passage in the "Origin," page 482, begins by expressing
surprise at the point of view of some naturalists: "They admit that a
multitude of forms, which till lately they themselves thought were special
creations,...have been produced by variation, but they refuse to extend the
same view to other and very slightly different forms...They admit variation
as a vera causa in one case, they arbitrarily reject it in another, without
assigning any distinction in the two cases. The day will come when this will
be given as a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion.")
it is very false to say that I imply by "blindness of preconceived opinion"
the simple belief of creation. And so on in other cases. But I beg pardon for
troubling you. I am heartily sorry that in your unselfish endeavours to
spread what you believe to be truth, you should have incurred so brutal an
attack. (98/6. The "Edinburgh" Reviewer, referring to Huxley's Royal
Institution Lecture given February 10th, 1860, "On Species and Races and
their Origin," says (page 521), "We gazed with amazement at the audacity
of the dispenser of the hour's intellectual amusement, who, availing himself
of the technical ignorance of the majority of his auditors, sought to blind
them as to the frail foundations of 'natural selection' by such illustrations as
the subjoined": And then follows a critique of the lecturer's comparison of
the supposed descent of the horse from the Palaeothere with that of various
kinds of domestic pigeons from the Rock-pigeon.) And now I will not think
any more of this false and malignant attack.
LETTER 99. TO MAXWELL MASTERS. Down, April 13th {1860}.
I thank you very sincerely for your two kind notes. The next time you
write to your father I beg you to give him from me my best thanks, but I am
sorry that he should have had the trouble of writing when ill. I have been
much interested by the facts given by him. If you think he would in the least
care to hear the result of an artificial cross of two sweet peas, you can send
the enclosed; if it will only trouble him, tear it up. There seems to be so

much parallelism in the kind of variation from my experiment, which was
certainly a cross, and what Mr. Masters has observed, that I cannot help
suspecting that his peas were crossed by bees, which I have seen well
dusted with the pollen of the sweet pea; but then I wish this, and how hard it
is to prevent one's wish biassing one's judgment!
I was struck with your remark about the Compositae, etc. I do not see
that it bears much against me, and whether it does or not is of course of not
the slightest importance. Although I fully agree that no definition can be
drawn between monstrosities and slight variations (such as my theory
requires), yet I suspect there is some distinction. Some facts lead me to
think that monstrosities supervene generally at an early age; and after
attending to the subject I have great doubts whether species in a state of
nature ever become modified by such sudden jumps as would result from
the Natural Selection of monstrosities. You cannot do me a greater service
than by pointing out errors. I sincerely hope that your work on monstrosities
(99/1. "Vegetable Teratology," London, 1869 (Ray Soc.).) will soon appear,
for I am sure it will be highly instructive.
Now for your notes, for which let me again thank you.
1. Your conclusion about parts developed (99/2. See "Origin of Species,"
Edition I., page 153, on the variability of parts "developed in an
extraordinary manner in any one species, compared with the other species
of the same genus." See "Life and Letters," II., pages 97, 98, also Letter 33.)
not being extra variable agrees with Hooker's. You will see that I have
stated that the rule apparently does not hold with plants, though it ought, if
true, to hold good with them.
2. I cannot now remember in what work I saw the statement about
Peloria affecting the axis, but I know it was one which I thought might be
trusted. I consulted also Dr. Falconer, and I think that he agreed to the truth
of it; but I cannot now tell where to look for my notes. I had been much
struck with finding a Laburnum tree with the terminal flowers alone in each
raceme peloric, though not perfectly regular. The Pelargonium case in the
"Origin" seems to point in the same direction. (99/3. "Origin of Species,"
Edition I., page 145.)
3. Thanks for the correction about furze: I found the seedlings just
sprouting, and was so much surprised and their appearance that I sent them
to Hooker; but I never plainly asked myself whether they were cotyledons

or first leaves. (99/4. The trifoliate leaves of furze seedlings are not
cotyledons, but early leaves: see Lubbock's "Seedlings," I., page 410.)
4. That is a curious fact about the seeds of the furze, the more curious as I
found with Leguminosae that immersion in plain cold water for a very few
days killed some kinds.
If at any time anything should occur to you illustrating or opposing my
notions, and you have leisure to inform me, I should be truly grateful, for I
can plainly see that you have wealth of knowledge.
With respect to advancement or retrogression in organisation in
monstrosities of the Compositae, etc., do you not find it very difficult to
define which is which?
Anyhow, most botanists seem to differ as widely as possible on this head.
LETTER 100. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 8th {1860}.
Very many thanks about the Elodea, which case interests me much. I
wrote to Mr. Marshall (100/1. W. Marshall was the author of "Anacharis
alsinastrum, a new water-weed": four letters to the "Cambridge Independent
Press," reprinted as a pamphlet, 1852.) at Ely, and in due time he says he
will send me whatever information he can procure.
Owen is indeed very spiteful. (100/2. Owen was believed to be the author
of the article in the "Edinburgh Review," April, 1860. See Letter 98.) He
misrepresents and alters what I say very unfairly. But I think his conduct
towards Hooker most ungenerous: viz., to allude to his essay (Australian
Flora), and not to notice the magnificent results on geographical
distribution. The Londoners say he is mad with envy because my book has
been talked about; what a strange man to be envious of a naturalist like
myself, immeasurably his inferior! From one conversation with him I really
suspect he goes at the bottom of his hidden soul as far as I do.
I wonder whether Sedgwick noticed in the "Edinburgh Review" about the
"Sacerdotal revilers,"—so the revilers are tearing each other to pieces. I
suppose Sedgwick will be very fierce against me at the Philosophical
Society. (100/3. The meeting of the "Cambridge Phil. Soc." was held on
May 7th, 1860, and fully reported in the "Cambridge Chronicle," May 19th.
Sedgwick is reported to have said that "Darwin's theory is not inductive—is
not based on a series of acknowledged facts, leading to a general conclusion
evolved, logically out of the facts...The only facts he pretends to adduce, as

true elements of proof, are the varieties produced by domestication and the
artifices of crossbreeding." Sedgwick went on to speak of the vexatious
multiplication of supposed species, and adds, "In this respect Darwin's
theory may help to simplify our classifications, and thereby do good service
to modern science. But he has not undermined any grand truth in the
constancy of natural laws, and the continuity of true species.") Judging
from his notice in the "Spectator," (100/4. March 24th, 1860; see "Life and
Letters," II., page 297.) he will misrepresent me, but it will certainly be
unintentionally done. In a letter to me, and in the above notice, he talks
much about my departing from the spirit of inductive philosophy. I wish, if
you ever talk on the subject to him, you would ask him whether it was not
allowable (and a great step) to invent the undulatory theory of light, i.e.
hypothetical undulations, in a hypothetical substance, the ether. And if this
be so, why may I not invent the hypothesis of Natural Selection (which
from the analogy of domestic productions, and from what we know of the
struggle for existence and of the variability of organic beings, is, in some
very slight degree, in itself probable) and try whether this hypothesis of
Natural Selection does not explain (as I think it does) a large number of
facts in geographical distribution—geological succession, classification,
morphology, embryology, etc. I should really much like to know why such
an hypothesis as the undulation of the ether may be invented, and why I
may not invent (not that I did invent it, for I was led to it by studying
domestic varieties) any hypothesis, such as Natural Selection.
Pray forgive me and my pen for running away with me, and scribbling on
at such length.
I can perfectly understand Sedgwick (100/5. See "Life and Letters," II.,
page 247; the letter is there dated December 24th, but must, we think, have
been written in November at latest.) or any one saying that Natural
Selection does not explain large classes of facts; but that is very different
from saying that I depart from right principles of scientific investigation.
LETTER 101. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 14th {1860}.
I have been greatly interested by your letter to Hooker, and I must thank
you from my heart for so generously defending me, as far as you could,
against my powerful attackers. Nothing which persons say hurts me for
long, for I have an entire conviction that I have not been influenced by bad
feelings in the conclusions at which I have arrived. Nor have I published

my conclusions without long deliberation, and they were arrived at after far
more study than the public will ever know of, or believe in. I am certain to
have erred in many points, but I do not believe so much as Sedgwick and
Co. think.
Is there any Abstract or Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical
Society published? (101/1. Henslow's remarks are not given in the above-
mentioned report in the "Cambridge Chronicle.") If so, and you could get
me a copy, I should like to have one.
Believe me, my dear Henslow, I feel grateful to you on this occasion, and
for the multitude of kindnesses you have done me from my earliest days at
Cambridge.
LETTER 102. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 22nd {1860}.
Hooker has sent me a letter of Thwaites (102/1. See Letter 97.), of
Ceylon, who makes exactly the same objections which you did at first about
the necessity of all forms advancing, and therefore the difficulty of simple
forms still existing. There was no worse omission than this in my book, and
I had the discussion all ready.
I am extremely glad to hear that you intend adding new arguments about
the imperfection of the Geological Record. I always feel this acutely, and
am surprised that such men as Ramsay and Jukes do not feel it more.
I quite agree on insufficient evidence about mummy wheat. (102/2. See
notes appended to a letter to Lyell, September 1843 (Botany).
When you can spare it, I should like (but out of mere curiosity) to see
Binney on Coal marine marshes.
I once made Hooker very savage by saying that I believed the Coal plants
grew in the sea, like mangroves. (102/3. See "Life and Letters," I., page
356.)
LETTER 103. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(103/1. This letter is of interest as containing a strong expression upon
the overwhelming importance of selection.)
Down {1860}.
Many thanks for Harvey's letter (103/2. W.H. Harvey had been
corresponding with Sir J.D. Hooker on the "Origin of Species."), which I
will keep a little longer and then return. I will write to him and try to make

clear from analogy of domestic productions the part which I believe
selection has played. I have been reworking my pigeons and other domestic
animals, and I am sure that any one is right in saying that selection is the
efficient cause, though, as you truly say, variation is the base of all. Why I
do not believe so much as you do in physical agencies is that I see in almost
every organism (though far more clearly in animals than in plants)
adaptation, and this except in rare instances, must, I should think, be due to
selection.
Do not forget the Pyrola when in flower. (103/3. In a letter to Hooker,
May 22nd, 1860, Darwin wrote: "Have you Pyrola at Kew? if so, for
heaven's sake observe the curvature of the pistil towards the gangway to the
nectary." The fact of the stigma in insect-visited flowers being so placed
that the visitor must touch it on its way to the nectar, was a point which
early attracted Darwin's attention and strongly impressed him.) My blessed
little Scaevola has come into flower, and I will try artificial fertilisation on
it.
I have looked over Harvey's letter, and have assumed (I hope rightly) that
he could not object to knowing that you had forwarded it to me.
LETTER 104. TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 8th {1860}.
I have to thank you for two notes, one through Hooker, and one with
some letters to be posted, which was done. I anticipated your request by
making a few remarks on Owen's review. (104/1. "The Edinburgh Review,"
April, 1860.) Hooker is so weary of reviews that I do not think you will get
any hints from him. I have lately had many more "kicks than halfpence." A
review in the last Dublin "Nat. Hist. Review" is the most unfair thing which
has appeared,—one mass of misrepresentation. It is evidently by Haughton,
the geologist, chemist and mathematician. It shows immeasurable conceit
and contempt of all who are not mathematicians. He discusses bees' cells,
and puts a series which I have never alluded to, and wholly ignores the
intermediate comb of Melipona, which alone led me to my notions. The
article is a curiosity of unfairness and arrogance; but, as he sneers at
Malthus, I am content, for it is clear he cannot reason. He is a friend of
Harvey, with whom I have had some correspondence. Your article has
clearly, as he admits, influenced him. He admits to a certain extent Natural
Selection, yet I am sure does not understand me. It is strange that very few
do, and I am become quite convinced that I must be an extremely bad

explainer. To recur for a moment to Owen: he grossly misrepresents and is
very unfair to Huxley. You say that you think the article must be by a pupil
of Owen; but no one fact tells so strongly against Owen, considering his
former position at the College of Surgeons, as that he has never reared one
pupil or follower. In the number just out of "Fraser's Magazine" (104/2. See
"Life and Letters," II., page 314.) there is an article or review on Lamarck
and me by W. Hopkins, the mathematician, who, like Haughton, despises
the reasoning power of all naturalists. Personally he is extremely kind
towards me; but he evidently in the following number means to blow me
into atoms. He does not in the least appreciate the difference in my views
and Lamarck's, as explaining adaptation, the principle of divergence, the
increase of dominant groups, and the almost necessary extinction of the less
dominant and smaller groups, etc.
LETTER 105. TO C. LYELL. Down, June 17th {1860}.
One word more upon the Deification (105/1. "If we confound 'Variation'
or 'Natural Selection' with such creational laws, we deify secondary causes
or immeasurably exaggerate their influence" (Lyell, "The Geological
Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks on Theories on the Origin
of Species by Variation," page 469, London, 1863). See Letter 131.) of
Natural Selection: attributing so much weight to it does not exclude still
more general laws, i.e. the ordering of the whole universe. I have said that
Natural Selection is to the structure of organised beings what the human
architect is to a building. The very existence of the human architect shows
the existence of more general laws; but no one, in giving credit for a
building to the human architect, thinks it necessary to refer to the laws by
which man has appeared.
No astronomer, in showing how the movements of planets are due to
gravity, thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed that
the planets should pursue the courses which they pursue. I cannot believe
that there is a bit more interference by the Creator in the construction of
each species than in the course of the planets. It is only owing to Paley and
Co., I believe, that this more special interference is thought necessary with
living bodies. But we shall never agree, so do not trouble yourself to
answer.
I should think your remarks were very just about mathematicians not
being better enabled to judge of probabilities than other men of common-

sense.
I have just got more returns about the gestation of hounds. The period
differs at least from sixty-one to seventy-four days, just as I expected.
I was thinking of sending the "Gardeners' Chronicle" to you, on account
of a paper by me on the fertilisation of orchids by insects (105/2.
"Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency." This article in the
"Gardeners' Chronicle" of June 9th, 1860, page 528, begins with a request
that observations should be made on the manner of fertilisation in the bee-
and in the fly-orchis.), as it involves a curious point, and as you cared about
my paper on kidney beans; but as you are so busy, I will not.
LETTER 106. TO C. LYELL. Down {June?} 20th {1860}.
I send Blyth (106/1. See Letter 27.); it is a dreadful handwriting; the
passage is on page 4. In a former note he told me he feared there was hardly
a chance of getting money for the Chinese expedition, and spoke of your
kindness.
Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I wonder at, admire, and
thank you for your patience in writing so much. I rather demur to
Deinosaurus not having "free will," as surely we have. I demur also to your
putting Huxley's "force and matter" in the same category with Natural
Selection. The latter may, of course, be quite a false view; but surely it is
not getting beyond our depth to first causes.
It is truly very remarkable that the gestation of hounds (106/2. In a letter
written to Lyell on June 25th, 1860, the following paragraph occurs: "You
need not believe one word of what I said about gestation of dogs. Since
writing to you I have had more correspondence with the master of hounds,
and I see his {record?} is worth nothing. It may, of course, be correct, but
cannot be trusted. I find also different statements about the wolf: in fact, I
am all abroad.") should vary so much, while that of man does not. It may be
from multiple origin. The eggs from the Musk and the common duck take
an intermediate period in hatching; but I should rather look at it as one of
the ten thousand cases which we cannot explain—namely, when one part or
function varies in one species and not in another.
Hooker has told me nothing about his explanation of few Arctic forms; I
knew the fact before. I had speculated on what I presume, from what you
say, is his explanation (106/3. "Outlines of the Distribution of Arctic
Plants," J.D. Hooker, "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIII., page 251, 1862.

{read June 21st, 1860.} In this paper Hooker draws attention to the
exceptional character of the Greenland flora; but as regards the paucity of
its species and in its much greater resemblance to the floras of Arctic
Europe than to those of Arctic America, he considers it difficult to account
for these facts, "unless we admit Mr. Darwin's hypotheses" (see "Origin,"
Edition VI., 1872, Chapter XII., page 330) of a southern migration due to
the cold of the glacial period and the subsequent return of the northern types
during the succeeding warmer period. Many of the Greenland species,
being confined to the peninsula, "would, as it were, be driven into the sea—
that is exterminated" (Hooker, op. cit., pages 253-4).); but there must have
been at all times an Arctic region. I found the speculation got too complex,
as it seemed to me, to be worth following out.
I have been doing some more interesting work with orchids. Talk of
adaptation in woodpeckers (106/4. "Can a more striking instance of
adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and
seizing insects in the chinks of the bark?" (Origin of Species," Edition
HAVE I., page 141).), some of the orchids beat it.
I showed the case to Elizabeth Wedgwood, and her remark was, "Now
you have upset your own book, for you won't persuade me that this could be
effected by Natural Selection."
LETTER 107. TO T.H. HUXLEY. July 20th {1860}.
Many thanks for your pleasant letter. I agree to every word you say about
"Fraser" and the "Quarterly." (107/1. Bishop Wilberforce's review of the
"Origin" in the "Quarterly Review," July, 1860, was republished in his
"Collected Essays," 1874. See "Life and Letters, II., page 182, and II., page
324, where some quotations from the review are given. For Hopkins' review
in "Fraser's Magazine," June, 1860, see "Life and Letters," II., 314.) I have
had some really admirable letters from Hopkins. I do not suppose he has
ever troubled his head about geographical distribution, classification,
morphologies, etc., and it is only those who have that will feel any relief in
having some sort of rational explanation of such facts. Is it not grand the
way in which the Bishop asserts that all such facts are explained by ideas in
God's mind? The "Quarterly" is uncommonly clever; and I chuckled much
at the way my grandfather and self are quizzed. I could here and there see
Owen's hand. By the way, how comes it that you were not attacked? Does
Owen begin to find it more prudent to leave you alone? I would give five

shillings to know what tremendous blunder the Bishop made; for I see that a
page has been cancelled and a new page gummed in.
I am indeed most thoroughly contented with the progress of opinion.
From all that I hear from several quarters, it seems that Oxford did the
subject great good. (107/2. An account of the meeting of the British
Association at Oxford in 1860 is given in the "Life and Letters," II., page
320, and a fuller account in the one-volume "Life of Charles Darwin,"
1892, page 236. See also the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I.,
page 179, and the amusing account of the meeting in Mr. Tuckwell's
"Reminiscences of Oxford," London, 1900, page 50.) It is of enormous
importance the showing the world that a few first-rate men are not afraid of
expressing their opinion. I see daily more and more plainly that my unaided
book would have done absolutely nothing. Asa Gray is fighting admirably
in the United States. He is thorough master of the subject, which cannot be
said by any means of such men as even Hopkins.
I have been thinking over what you allude to about a natural history
review. (107/3. In the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page
209, some account of the founding of the "Natural History Review" is given
in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker of July 17th, 1860. On August 2nd Mr. Huxley
added: "Darwin wrote me a very kind expostulation about it, telling me I
ought not to waste myself on other than original work. In reply, however, I
assured him that I MUST waste myself willy-nilly, and that the 'Review'
was only a save-all.") I suppose you mean really a REVIEW and not journal
for original communications in Natural History. Of the latter there is now
superabundance. With respect to a good review, there can be no doubt of its
value and utility; nevertheless, if not too late, I hope you will consider
deliberately before you decide. Remember what a deal of work you have on
your shoulders, and though you can do much, yet there is a limit to even the
hardest worker's power of working. I should deeply regret to see you
sacrificing much time which could be given to original research. I fear, to
one who can review as well as you do, there would be the same temptation
to waste time, as there notoriously is for those who can speak well.
A review is only temporary; your work should be perennial. I know well
that you may say that unless good men will review there will be no good
reviews. And this is true. Would you not do more good by an occasional
review in some well-established review, than by giving up much time to the

editing, or largely aiding, if not editing, a review which from being
confined to one subject would not have a very large circulation? But I must
return to the chief idea which strikes me—viz., that it would lessen the
amount of original and perennial work which you could do. Reflect how
few men there are in England who can do original work in the several lines
in which you are excellently fitted. Lyell, I remember, on analogous
grounds many years ago resolved he would write no more reviews. I am an
old slowcoach, and your scheme makes me tremble. God knows in one
sense I am about the last man in England who ought to throw cold water on
any review in which you would be concerned, as I have so immensely
profited by your labours in this line.
With respect to reviewing myself, I never tried: any work of that kind
stops me doing anything else, as I cannot possibly work at odds and ends of
time. I have, moreover, an insane hatred of stopping my regular current of
work. I have now materials for a little paper or two, but I know I shall never
work them up. So I will not promise to help; though not to help, if I could,
would make me feel very ungrateful to you. You have no idea during how
short a time daily I am able to work. If I had any regular duties, like you
and Hooker, I should do absolutely nothing in science.
I am heartily glad to hear that you are better; but how such labour as
volunteer-soldiering (all honour to you) does not kill you, I cannot
understand.
For God's sake remember that your field of labour is original research in
the highest and most difficult branches of Natural History. Not that I wish to
underrate the importance of clever and solid reviews.
LETTER 108. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Sudbrook Park, Richmond, Thursday
{July, 1860}.
I must send you a line to say what a good fellow you are to send me so
long an account of the Oxford doings. I have read it twice, and sent it to my
wife, and when I get home shall read it again: it has so much interested me.
But how durst you attack a live bishop in that fashion? I am quite ashamed
of you! Have you no reverence for fine lawn sleeves? By Jove, you seem to
have done it well. If any one were to ridicule any belief of the bishop's,
would he not blandly shrug his shoulders and be inexpressibly shocked? I
am very, very sorry to hear that you are not well; but am not surprised after

all your self-imposed labour. I hope you will soon have an outing, and that
will do you real good.
I am glad to hear about J. Lubbock, whom I hope to see soon, and shall
tell him what you have said. Have you read Hopkins in the last "Fraser?"—
well put, in good spirit, except soul discussion bad, as I have told him;
nothing actually new, takes the weak points alone, and leaves out all other
considerations.
I heard from Asa Gray yesterday; he goes on fighting like a Trojan.
God bless you!—get well, be idle, and always reverence a bishop.
LETTER 109. TO J.D. DANA. Down, July 30th {1860}.
I received several weeks ago your note telling me that you could not visit
England, which I sincerely regretted, as I should most heartily have liked to
have made your personal acquaintance. You gave me an improved, but not
very good, account of your health. I should at some time be grateful for a
line to tell me how you are. We have had a miserable summer, owing to a
terribly long and severe illness of my eldest girl, who improves slightly but
is still in a precarious condition. I have been able to do nothing in science of
late. My kind friend Asa Gray often writes to me and tells me of the warm
discussions on the "Origin of Species" in the United States. Whenever you
are strong enough to read it, I know you will be dead against me, but I
know equally well that your opposition will be liberal and philosophical.
And this is a good deal more than I can say of all my opponents in this
country. I have not yet seen Agassiz's attack (109/1. "Silliman's Journal,"
July, 1860. A passage from Agassiz's review is given by Mr. Huxley in
Darwin's "Life and Letters," II., page 184.), but I hope to find it at home
when I return in a few days, for I have been for several weeks away from
home on my daughter's account. Prof. Silliman sent me an extremely kind
message by Asa Gray that your Journal would be open to a reply by me. I
cannot decide till I see it, but on principle I have resolved to avoid
answering anything, as it consumes much time, often temper, and I have
said my say in the "Origin." No one person understands my views and has
defended them so well as A. Gray, though he does not by any means go all
the way with me. There was much discussion on the subject at the British
Association at Oxford, and I had many defenders, and my side seems (for I
was not there) almost to have got the best of the battle. Your correspondent
and my neighbour, J. Lubbock, goes on working at such spare time as he

has. This is an egotistical note, but I have not seen a naturalist for months.
Most sincerely and deeply do I hope that this note may find you almost
recovered.
LETTER 110. TO W.H. HARVEY.
(110/1. See Letter 95, note. This letter was written in reply to a long one
from W.H. Harvey, dated August 24th, 1860. Harvey had already published
a serio-comic squib and a review, to which references are given in the "Life
and Letters," II., pages 314 and 375; but apparently he had not before this
time completed the reading of the "Origin.")
{August, 1860.}
I have read your long letter with much interest, and I thank you for your
great liberality in sending it me. But, on reflection, I do not wish to attempt
answering any part, except to you privately. Anything said by myself in
defence would have no weight; it is best to be defended by others, or not at
all. Parts of your letter seem to me, if I may be permitted to say so, very
acute and original, and I feel it a great compliment your giving up so much
time to my book. But, on the whole, I am disappointed; not from your not
concurring with me, for I never expected that, and, indeed, in your remarks
on Chapters XII. and XIII., you go much further with me (though a little
way) than I ever anticipated, and am much pleased at the result. But on the
whole I am disappointed, because it seems to me that you do not understand
what I mean by Natural Selection, as shown at page 11 (110/2. Harvey
speaks of the perpetuation or selection of the useful, pre-supposing "a
vigilant and intelligent agent," which is very much like saying that an
intelligent agent is needed to see that the small stones pass through the
meshes of a sieve and the big ones remain behind.) of your letter and by
several of your remarks. As my book has failed to explain my meaning, it
would be hopeless to attempt it in a letter. You speak in the early part of
your letter, and at page 9, as if I had said that Natural Selection was the sole
agency of modification, whereas I have over and over again, ad nauseam,
directly said, and by order of precedence implied (what seems to me
obvious) that selection can do nothing without previous variability (see
pages 80, 108, 127, 468, 469, etc.), "nothing can be effected unless
favourable variations occur." I consider Natural Selection as of such high
importance, because it accumulates successive variations in any profitable
direction, and thus adapts each new being to its complex conditions of life.

The term "selection," I see, deceives many persons, though I see no more
reason why it should than elective affinity, as used by the old chemists. If I
had to rewrite my book, I would use "natural preservation" or "naturally
preserved." I should think you would as soon take an emetic as re-read any
part of my book; but if you did, and were to erase selection and selected,
and insert preservation and preserved, possibly the subject would be clearer.
As you are not singular in misunderstanding my book, I should long before
this have concluded that my brains were in a haze had I not found by
published reviews, and especially by correspondence, that Lyell, Hooker,
Asa Gray, H.C. Watson, Huxley, and Carpenter, and many others, perfectly
comprehend what I mean. The upshot of your remarks at page 11 is that my
explanation, etc., and the whole doctrine of Natural Selection, are mere
empty words, signifying the "order of nature." As the above-named clear-
headed men, who do comprehend my views, all go a certain length with me,
and certainly do not think it all moonshine, I should venture to suggest a
little further reflection on your part. I do not mean by this to imply that the
opinion of these men is worth much as showing that I am right, but merely
as some evidence that I have clearer ideas than you think, otherwise these
same men must be even more muddle-headed than I am; for they have no
temptation to deceive themselves. In the forthcoming September (110/3.
"American Journal of Science and Arts," September 1860, "Design versus
Necessity," reprinted in Asa Gray's "Darwiniana," 1876, page 62.) number
of the "American Journal of Science" there is an interesting and short
theological article (by Asa Gray), which gives incidentally with admirable
clearness the theory of Natural Selection, and therefore might be worth your
reading. I think that the theological part would interest you.
You object to all my illustrations. They are all necessarily conjectural,
and may be all false; but they were the best I could give. The bear case
(110/4. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 184. See Letter 120.) has been
well laughed at, and disingenuously distorted by some into my saying that a
bear could be converted into a whale. As it offended persons, I struck it out
in the second edition; but I still maintain that there is no especial difficulty
in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits,
—no more difficulty than man has found in increasing the crop of the
pigeon, by continued selection, until it is literally as big as the whole rest of
the body. If this had not been known, how absurd it would have appeared to
say that the crop of a bird might be increased till it became like a balloon!

With respect to the ostrich, I believe that the wings have been reduced,
and are not in course of development, because the whole structure of a bird
is essentially formed for flight; and the ostrich is essentially a bird. You will
see at page 182 of the "Origin" a somewhat analogous discussion. At page
450 of the second edition I have pointed out the essential distinction
between a nascent and rudimentary organ. If you prefer the more complex
view that the progenitor of the ostrich lost its wings, and that the present
ostrich is regaining them, I have nothing to say in opposition.
With respect to trees on islands, I collected some cases, but took the main
facts from Alph. De Candolle, and thought they might be trusted. My
explanation may be grossly wrong; but I am not convinced it is so, and I do
not see the full force of your argument of certain herbaceous orders having
been developed into trees in certain rare cases on continents. The case
seems to me to turn altogether on the question whether generally
herbaceous orders more frequently afford trees and bushes on islands than
on continents, relatively to their areas. (110/5. In the "Origin," Edition I.,
page 392, the author points out that in the presence of competing trees an
herbaceous plant would have little chance of becoming arborescent; but on
an island, with only other herbaceous plants as competitors, it might gain an
advantage by overtopping its fellows, and become tree-like. Harvey writes:
"What you say (page 392) of insular trees belonging to orders which
elsewhere include only herbaceous species seems to me to be unsupported
by sufficient evidence. You cite no particular trees, and I may therefore be
wrong in guessing that the orders you allude to are Scrophularineae and
Compositae; and the insular trees the Antarctic Veronicas and the
arborescent Compositae of St. Helena, Tasmania, etc. But in South Africa
Halleria (Scrophularineae) is often as large and woody as an apple tree; and
there are several South African arborescent Compositae (Senecio and
Oldenburgia). Besides, in Tasmania at least, the arborescent Composites are
not found competing with herbaceous plants alone, and growing taller and
taller by overtopping them...; for the most arborescent of them all (Eurybia
argophylla, the Musk tree) grows...in Eucalyptus forests. And so of the
South African Halleria, which is a tree among trees. What the conditions of
the arborescent Gerania of the Sandwich Islands may be I am unable to
say...I cannot remember any other instances, nor can I accept your
explanation in any other of the cases I have cited.")

In page 4 of your letter you say you give up many book-species as
separate creations: I give up all, and you infer that our difference is only in
degree and not in kind. I dissent from this; for I give a distinct reason how
far I go in giving up species. I look at all forms, which resemble each other
homologically or embryologically, as certainly descended from the same
species.
You hit me hard and fairly (110/6. Harvey writes: "You ask—were all the
infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed, or
as full grown? To this it is sufficient to reply, was your primordial organism,
or were your four or five progenitors created as egg, seed, or full grown?
Neither theory attempts to solve this riddle, nor yet the riddle of the
Omphalos." The latter point, which Mr. Darwin refuses to give up, is at
page 483 of the "Origin," "and, in the case of mammals, were they created
bearing the false marks of nourishment from the mother's womb?" In the
third edition of the "Origin," 1861, page 517, the author adds, after the last-
cited passage: "Undoubtedly these same questions cannot be answered by
those who, under the present state of science, believe in the creation of a
few aboriginal forms, or of some one form of life. In the sixth edition,
probably with a view to the umbilicus, he writes (page 423): "Undoubtedly
some of these same questions," etc., etc. From notes in Mr. Darwin's copy
of the second edition it is clear that the change in the third edition was
chiefly due to Harvey's letter. See Letter 115.) about my question (page 483,
"Origin") about creation of eggs or young, etc., (but not about mammals
with the mark of the umbilical cord), yet I still have an illogical sort of
feeling that there is less difficulty in imagining the creation of an asexual
cell, increasing by simple division.
Page 5 of your letter: I agree to every word about the antiquity of the
world, and never saw the case put by any one more strongly or more ably. It
makes, however, no more impression on me as an objection than does the
astronomer when he puts on a few hundred million miles to the distance of
the fixed stars. To compare very small things with great, Lingula, etc.,
remaining nearly unaltered from the Silurian epoch to the present day, is
like the dovecote pigeons still being identical with wild Rock-pigeons,
whereas its "fancy" offspring have been immensely modified, and are still
being modified, by means of artificial selection.

You put the difficulty of the first modification of the first protozoon
admirably. I assure you that immediately after the first edition was
published this occurred to me, and I thought of inserting it in the second
edition. I did not, because we know not in the least what the first germ of
life was, nor have we any fact at all to guide us in our speculations on the
kind of change which its offspring underwent. I dissent quite from what you
say of the myriads of years it would take to people the world with such
imagined protozoon. In how very short a time Ehrenberg calculated that a
single infusorium might make a cube of rock! A single cube on geometrical
progression would make the solid globe in (I suppose) under a century.
From what little I know, I cannot help thinking that you underrate the
effects of the physical conditions of life on these low organisms. But I fully
admit that I can give no sort of answer to your objections; yet I must add
that it would be marvellous if any man ever could, assuming for the
moment that my theory is true. You beg the question, I think, in saying that
Protococcus would be doomed to eternal similarity. Nor can you know that
the first germ resembled a Protococcus or any other now living form.
Page 12 of your letter: There is nothing in my theory necessitating in
each case progression of organisation, though Natural Selection tends in
this line, and has generally thus acted. An animal, if it become fitted by
selection to live the life, for instance, of a parasite, will generally become
degraded. I have much regretted that I did not make this part of the subject
clearer. I left out this and many other subjects, which I now see ought to
have been introduced. I have inserted a discussion on this subject in the
foreign editions. (110/7. In the third Edition a discussion on this point is
added in Chapter IV.) In no case will any organic being tend to retrograde,
unless such retrogradation be an advantage to its varying offspring; and it is
difficult to see how going back to the structure of the unknown supposed
original protozoon could ever be an advantage.
Page 13 of your letter: I have been more glad to read your discussion on
"dominant" forms than any part of your letter. (110/8. Harvey writes:
"Viewing organic nature in its widest aspect, I think it is unquestionable that
the truly dominant races are not those of high, but those of low
organisation"; and goes on to quote the potato disease, etc. In the third
edition of the "Origin," page 56, a discussion is introduced defining the
author's use of the term "dominant.") I can now see that I have not been
cautious enough in confining my definition and meaning. I cannot say that

you have altered my views. If Botrytis {Phytophthora} had exterminated
the wild potato, a low form would have conquered a high; but I cannot
remember that I have ever said (I am sure I never thought) that a low form
would never conquer a high. I have expressly alluded to parasites half
exterminating game-animals, and to the struggle for life being sometimes
between forms as different as possible: for instance, between grasshoppers
and herbivorous quadrupeds. Under the many conditions of life which this
world affords, any group which is numerous in individuals and species and
is widely distributed, may properly be called dominant. I never dreamed of
considering that any one group, under all conditions and throughout the
world, would be predominant. How could vertebrata be predominant under
the conditions of life in which parasitic worms live? What good would their
perfected senses and their intellect serve under such conditions? When I
have spoken of dominant forms, it has been in relation to the multiplication
of new specific forms, and the dominance of any one species has been
relative generally to other members of the same group, or at least to beings
exposed to similar conditions and coming into competition. But I daresay
that I have not in the "Origin" made myself clear, and space has rendered it
impossible. But I thank you most sincerely for your valuable remarks,
though I do not agree with them.
About sudden jumps: I have no objection to them—they would aid me in
some cases. All I can say is, that I went into the subject, and found no
evidence to make me believe in jumps; and a good deal pointing in the
other direction. You will find it difficult (page 14 of your letter) to make a
marked line of separation between fertile and infertile crosses. I do not see
how the apparently sudden change (for the suddenness of change in a
chrysalis is of course largely only apparent) in larvae during their
development throws any light on the subject.
I wish I could have made this letter better worth sending to you. I have
had it copied to save you at least the intolerable trouble of reading my bad
handwriting. Again I thank you for your great liberality and kindness in
sending me your criticisms, and I heartily wish we were a little nearer in
accord; but we must remain content to be as wide asunder as the poles, but
without, thank God, any malice or other ill-feeling.
LETTER 111. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(111/1. Dr. Asa Gray's articles in the "Atlantic Monthly," July, August,
and October, 1860, were published in England as a pamphlet, and form
Chapter III. in his "Darwiniana" (1876). See "Life and Letters," II., page
338. The article referred to in the present letter is that in the August
number.)
Down, September 10th {1860}.
I send by this post a review by Asa Gray, so good that I should like you
to see it; I must beg for its return. I want to ask, also, your opinion about
getting it reprinted in England. I thought of sending it to the Editor of the
"Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist." in which two hostile reviews have
appeared (although I suppose the "Annals" have a very poor circulation),
and asking them in the spirit of fair play to print this, with Asa Gray's name,
which I will take the responsibility of adding. Also, as it is long, I would
offer to pay expenses.
It is very good, in addition, as bringing in Pictet so largely. (111/2. Pictet
(1809-72) wrote a "perfectly fair" review opposed to the "Origin." See "Life
and Letters," II., page 297.) Tell me briefly what you think.
What an astonishing expedition this is of Hooker's to Syria! God knows
whether it is wise.
How are you and all yours? I hope you are not working too hard. For
Heaven's sake, think that you may become such a beast as I am. How goes
on the "Nat. Hist. Review?" Talking of reviews, I damned with a good grace
the review in the "Athenaeum" (111/3. Review of "The Glaciers of the
Alps" ("Athenaeum," September 1, 1860, page 280).) on Tyndall with a
mean, scurvy allusion to you. It is disgraceful about Tyndall,—in fact,
doubting his veracity.
I am very tired, and hate nearly the whole world. So good-night, and take
care of your digestion, which means brain.
LETTER 112. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, 26th
{September 1860}.
It has just occurred to me that I took no notice of your questions on
extinction in St. Helena. I am nearly sure that Hooker has information on
the extinction of plants (112/1. "Principles of Geology," Volume II. (Edition
X., 1868), page 453. Facts are quoted from Hooker illustrating the

extermination of plants in St. Helena.), but I cannot remember where I have
seen it. One may confidently assume that many insects were exterminated.
By the way, I heard lately from Wollaston, who told me that he had just
received eminently Madeira and Canary Island insect forms from the Cape
of Good Hope, to which trifling distance, if he is logical, he will have to
extend his Atlantis! I have just received your letter, and am very much
pleased that you approve. But I am utterly disgusted and ashamed about the
dingo. I cannot think how I could have misunderstood the paper so grossly.
I hope I have not blundered likewise in its co-existence with extinct species:
what horrid blundering! I am grieved to hear that you think I must work in
the notes in the text; but you are so much better a judge that I will obey. I
am sorry that you had the trouble of returning the Dog MS., which I
suppose I shall receive to-morrow.
I mean to give good woodcuts of all the chief races of pigeons. (112/2.
"The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.)
Except the C. oenas (112/3. The Columba oenas of Europe roosts on trees
and builds its nest in holes, either in trees or the ground ("Var. of Animals,"
Volume I., page 183).) (which is partly, indeed almost entirely, a wood
pigeon), there is no other rock pigeon with which our domestic pigeon
would cross—that is, if several exceedingly close geographical races of C.
livia, which hardly any ornithologist looks at as true species, be all grouped
under C. livia. (112/4. Columba livia, the Rock-pigeon. "We may conclude
with confidence that all the domestic races, notwithstanding their great
amount of difference, are descended from the Columba livia, including
under this name certain wild races" (op. cit., Volume I., page 223).)
I am writing higgledy-piggledy, as I re-read your letter. I thought that my
letter had been much wilder than yours. I quite feel the comfort of writing
when one may "alter one's speculations the day after." It is beyond my
knowledge to weigh ranks of birds and monotremes; in the respiratory and
circulatory system and muscular energy I believe birds are ahead of all
mammals.
I knew that you must have known about New Guinea; but in writing to
you I never make myself civil!
After treating some half-dozen or dozen domestic animals in the same
manner as I treat dogs, I intended to have a chapter of conclusions. But
Heaven knows when I shall finish: I get on very slowly. You would be

surprised how long it took me to pick out what seemed useful about dogs
out of multitudes of details.
I see the force of your remark about more isolated races of man in old
times, and therefore more in number. It seems to me difficult to weigh
probabilities. Perhaps so, if you refer to very slight differences in the races:
to make great differences much time would be required, and then, even at
the earliest period I should have expected one race to have spread,
conquered, and exterminated the others.
With respect to Falconer's series of Elephants (112/5. In 1837 Dr.
Falconer and Sir Proby Cautley collected a large number of fossil remains
from the Siwalik Hills. Falconer and Cautley, "Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,"
1845-49.), I think the case could be answered better than I have done in the
"Origin," page 334. (112/6. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 334. "It is
no real objection to the truth of the statement that the fauna of each period
as a whole is nearly intermediate in character between the preceding and
succeeding faunas, that certain genera offer exceptions to the rule. For
instance, mastodons and elephants, when arranged by Dr. Falconer in two
series, first according to their mutual affinities and then according to their
periods of existence, do not accord in arrangement. The species extreme in
character are not the oldest, or the most recent; nor are those which are
intermediate in character intermediate in age. But supposing for an instant,
in this and other such cases, that the record of the first appearance and
disappearance of the species was perfect, we have no reason to believe that
forms successively produced necessarily endure for corresponding lengths
of time. A very ancient form might occasionally last much longer than a
form elsewhere subsequently produced, especially in the case of terrestrial
productions inhabiting separated districts" (pages 334-5). The same words
occur in the later edition of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 306.) All these
new discoveries show how imperfect the discovered series is, which
Falconer thought years ago was nearly perfect.
I will send to-day or to-morrow two articles by Asa Gray. The longer one
(now not finally corrected) will come out in the October "Atlantic
Monthly," and they can be got at Trubner's. Hearty thanks for all your
kindness.
Do not hurry over Asa Gray. He strikes me as one of the best reasoners
and writers I ever read. He knows my book as well as I do myself.

LETTER 113. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October
3rd {1860}.
Your last letter has interested me much in many ways.
I enclose a letter of Wyman's which touches on brains. Wyman is
mistaken in supposing that I did not know that the Cave-rat was an
American form; I made special enquiries. He does not know that the eye of
the Tucotuco was carefully dissected.
With respect to reviews by A. Gray. I thought of sending the Dialogue to
the "Saturday Review" in a week's time or so, as they have lately discussed
Design. (113/1. "Discussion between two Readers of Darwin's Treatise on
the Origin of Species, upon its Natural Theology" ("Amer. Journ. Sci."
Volume XXX, page 226, 1860). Reprinted in "Darwiniana," 1876, page 62.
The article begins with the following question: "First Reader—Is Darwin's
theory atheistic or pantheistic? Or does it tend to atheism or pantheism?"
The discussion is closed by the Second Reader, who thus sums up his
views: "Wherefore we may insist that, for all that yet appears, the argument
for design, as presented by the natural theologians, is just as good now, if
we accept Darwin's theory, as it was before the theory was promulgated;
and that the sceptical juryman, who was about to join the other eleven in an
unanimous verdict in favour of design, finds no good excuse for keeping the
Court longer waiting.") I have sent the second, or August, "Atlantic" article
to the "Annals and Mag. of Nat. History." (113/2. "Annals and Mag. Nat.
Hist." Volume VI., pages 373-86, 1860. (From the "Atlantic Monthly,"
August, 1860.)) The copy which you have I want to send to Pictet, as I told
A. Gray I would, thinking from what he said he would like this to be done. I
doubt whether it would be possible to get the October number reprinted in
this country; so that I am in no hurry at all for this.
I had a letter a few weeks ago from Symonds on the imperfection of the
Geological Record, less clear and forcible than I expected. I answered him
at length and very civilly, though I could hardly make out what he was
driving at. He spoke about you in a way which it did me good to read.
I am extremely glad that you like A. Gray's reviews. How generous and
unselfish he has been in all his labour! Are you not struck by his metaphors
and similes? I have told him he is a poet and not a lawyer.
I should altogether doubt on turtles being converted into land tortoises on
any one island. Remember how closely similar tortoises are on all

continents, as well as islands; they must have all descended from one
ancient progenitor, including the gigantic tortoise of the Himalaya.
I think you must be cautious in not running the convenient doctrine that
only one species out of very many ever varies. Reflect on such cases as the
fauna and flora of Europe, North America, and Japan, which are so similar,
and yet which have a great majority of their species either specifically
distinct, or forming well-marked races. We must in such cases incline to the
belief that a multitude of species were once identically the same in all the
three countries when under a warmer climate and more in connection; and
have varied in all the three countries. I am inclined to believe that almost
every species (as we see with nearly all our domestic productions) varies
sufficiently for Natural Selection to pick out and accumulate new specific
differences, under new organic and inorganic conditions of life, whenever a
place is open in the polity of nature. But looking to a long lapse of time and
to the whole world, or to large parts of the world, I believe only one or a
few species of each large genus ultimately becomes victorious, and leaves
modified descendants. To give an imaginary instance: the jay has become
modified in the three countries into (I believe) three or four species; but the
jay genus is not, apparently, so dominant a group as the crows; and in the
long run probably all the jays will be exterminated and be replaced perhaps
by some modified crows.
I merely give this illustration to show what seems to me probable.
But oh! what work there is before we shall understand the genealogy of
organic beings!
With respect to the Apteryx, I know not enough of anatomy; but ask Dr.
F. whether the clavicle, etc., do not give attachment to some of the muscles
of respiration. If my views are at all correct, the wing of the Apteryx (113/3.
"Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 140.) cannot be (page 452 of the
"Origin") a nascent organ, as these wings are useless. I dare not trust to
memory, but I know I found the whole sternum always reduced in size in all
the fancy and confined pigeons relatively to the same bones in the wild
Rock-pigeon: the keel was generally still further reduced relatively to the
reduced length of the sternum; but in some breeds it was in a most
anomalous manner more prominent. I have got a lot of facts on the
reduction of the organs of flight in the pigeon, which took me weeks to
work out, and which Huxley thought curious.

I am utterly ashamed, and groan over my handwriting. It was "Natural
Preservation." Natural persecution is what the author ought to suffer. It
rejoices me that you do not object to the term. Hooker made the same
remark that it ought to have been "Variation and Natural Selection." Yet
with domestic productions, when selection is spoken of, variation is always
implied. But I entirely agree with your and Hooker's remark.
Have you begun regularly to write your book on the antiquity of man?
(113/4. Published in 1863.)
I do NOT agree with your remark that I make Natural Selection do too
much work. You will perhaps reply that every man rides his hobby-horse to
death; and that I am in the galloping state.
LETTER 114. TO C. LYELL. 15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, Friday 5th
{October, 1860}.
I have two notes to thank you for, and I return Wollaston. It has always
seemed to me rather strange that Forbes, Wollaston and Co. should argue,
from the presence of allied, and not identical species in islands, for the
former continuity of land.
They argue, I suppose, from the species being allied in different regions
of the same continent, though specifically distinct. But I think one might on
the creative doctrine argue with equal force in a directly reverse manner,
and say that, as species are so often markedly distinct, yet allied, on islands,
all our continents existed as islands first, and their inhabitants were first
created on these islands, and since became mingled together, so as not to be
so distinct as they now generally are on islands.
LETTER 115. TO H.G. BRONN. Down, October 5th {1860}.

I ought to apologise for troubling you, but I have at last carefully read
your excellent criticisms on my book. (115/1. Bronn added critical remarks
to his German translation of the "Origin": see "Life and Letters," II., page
279.) I agree with much of them, and wholly with your final sentence. The
objections and difficulties which may be urged against my view are indeed
heavy enough almost to break my back, but it is not yet broken! You put
very well and very fairly that I can in no one instance explain the course of
modification in any particular instance. I could make some sort of answer to
your case of the two rats; and might I not turn round and ask him who
believes in the separate creation of each species, why one rat has a longer
tail or shorter ears than another? I presume that most people would say that
these characters were of some use, or stood in some connection with other
parts; and if so, Natural Selection would act on them. But as you put the
case, it tells well against me. You argue most justly against my question,
whether the many species were created as eggs (115/2. See Letter 110.) or
as mature, etc. I certainly had no right to ask that question. I fully agree that
there might have been as well a hundred thousand creations as eight or ten,
or only one. But then, on the view of eight or ten creations (i.e. as many as
there are distinct types of structure) we can on my view understand the
homological and embryological resemblance of all the organisms of each
type, and on this ground almost alone I disbelieve in the innumerable acts
of creation. There are only two points on which I think you have
misunderstood me. I refer only to one Glacial period as affecting the
distribution of organic beings; I did not wish even to allude to the doubtful
evidence of glacial action in the Permian and Carboniferous periods.
Secondly, I do not believe that the process of development has always been
carried on at the same rate in all different parts of the world. Australia is
opposed to such belief. The nearly contemporaneous equal development in
past periods I attribute to the slow migration of the higher and more
dominant forms over the whole world, and not to independent acts of
development in different parts. Lastly, permit me to add that I cannot see
the force of your objection, that nothing is effected until the origin of life is
explained: surely it is worth while to attempt to follow out the action of
electricity, though we know not what electricity is.
If you should at any time do me the favour of writing to me, I should be
very much obliged if you would inform me whether you have yourself
examined Brehm's subspecies of birds; for I have looked through some of

his writings, but have never met an ornithologist who believed in his
{illegible}. Are these subspecies really characteristic of certain different
regions of Germany?
Should you write, I should much like to know how the German edition
sells.
LETTER 116. TO J.S. HENSLOW. October 26th {1860}.
Many thanks for your note and for all the trouble about the seeds, which
will be most useful to me next spring. On my return home I will send the
shillings. (116/1. Shillings for the little girls in Henslow's parish who
collected seeds for Darwin.) I concluded that Dr. Bree had blundered about
the Celts. I care not for his dull, unvarying abuse of me, and singular
misrepresentation. But at page 244 he in fact doubts my deliberate word,
and that is the act of a man who has not the soul of a gentleman in him.
Kingsley is "the celebrated author and divine" (116/2. "Species not
Transmutable," by C.R. Bree. After quoting from the "Origin," Edition II.,
page 481, the words in which a celebrated author and divine confesses that
"he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the
Deity to believe that He created a few original forms, etc.," Dr. Bree goes
on: "I think we ought to have had the name of this divine given with this
remarkable statement. I confess that I have not yet fully made up my mind
that any divine could have ever penned lines so fatal to the truths he is
called upon to teach.") whose striking sentence I give in the second edition
with his permission. I did not choose to ask him to let me use his name, and
as he did not volunteer, I had of course no choice. (116/3. We are indebted
to Mr. G.W. Prothero for calling our attention to the following striking
passage from the works of a divine of this period:—"Just a similar
scepticism has been evinced by nearly all the first physiologists of the day,
who have joined in rejecting the development theories of Lamarck and the
'Vestiges'...Yet it is now acknowledged under the high sanction of the name
of Owen that 'creation' is only another name for our ignorance of the mode
of production...while a work has now appeared by a naturalist of the most
acknowledged authority, Mr. Darwin's masterly volume on the 'Origin of
Species,' by the law of 'natural selection,' which now substantiates on
undeniable grounds the very principle so long denounced by the first
naturalists—the origination of new species by natural causes: a work which
must soon bring about an entire revolution of opinion in favour of the grand

principle of the self-evolving powers of nature."—Prof. Baden Powell's
"Study of the Evidences of Christianity," "Essays and Reviews," 7th
edition, 1861 (pages 138, 139).)
Dr. Freke has sent me his paper, which is far beyond my scope—
something like the capital quiz in the "Anti-Jacobin" on my grandfather,
which was quoted in the "Quarterly Review."
LETTER 117. TO D.T. ANSTED.
(117/1. The following letter was published in Professor Meldola's
presidential address to the Entomological Society, 1897, and to him we are
indebted for a copy.)
15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October 27th {1860}.
As I am away from home on account of my daughter's health, I do not
know your address, and fly this at random, and it is of very little
consequence if it never reaches you.
I have just been reading the greater part of your "Geological Gossip," and
have found part very interesting; but I want to express my admiration at the
clear and correct manner in which you have given a sketch of Natural
Selection. You will think this very slight praise; but I declare that the
majority of readers seem utterly incapable of comprehending my long
argument. Some of the reviewers, who have servilely stuck to my
illustrations and almost to my words, have been correct, but extraordinarily
few others have succeeded. I can see plainly, by your new illustrations and
manner and order of putting the case, that you thoroughly comprehend the
subject. I assure you this is most gratifying to me, and it is the sole way in
which the public can be indoctrinated. I am often in despair in making the
generality of NATURALISTS even comprehend me. Intelligent men who
are not naturalists and have not a bigoted idea of the term species, show
more clearness of mind. I think that you have done the subject a real
service, and I sincerely thank you. No doubt there will be much error found
in my book, but I have great confidence that the main view will be, in time,
found correct; for I find, without exception, that those naturalists who went
at first one inch with me now go a foot or yard with me.
This note obviously requires no answer.
LETTER 118. TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 22nd {1860}.

I thank you sincerely for writing to me and for your very interesting
letter. Your name has for very long been familiar to me, and I have heard of
your zealous exertions in the cause of Natural History. But I did not know
that you had worked with high philosophical questions before your mind. I
have an old belief that a good observer really means a good theorist (118/1.
For an opposite opinion, see Letter 13.), and I fully expect to find your
observations most valuable. I am very sorry to hear that your health is
shattered; but I trust under a healthy climate it may be restored. I can
sympathise with you fully on this score, for I have had bad health for many
years, and fear I shall ever remain a confirmed invalid. I am delighted to
hear that you, with all your large practical knowledge of Natural History,
anticipated me in many respects and concur with me. As you say, I have
been thoroughly well attacked and reviled (especially by entomologists—
Westwood, Wollaston, and A. Murray have all reviewed and sneered at me
to their hearts' content), but I care nothing about their attacks; several really
good judges go a long way with me, and I observe that all those who go
some little way tend to go somewhat further. What a fine philosophical
mind your friend Mr. Wallace has, and he has acted, in relation to me, like a
true man with a noble spirit. I see by your letter that you have grappled with
several of the most difficult problems, as it seems to me, in Natural History
—such as the distinctions between the different kinds of varieties,
representative species, etc. Perhaps I shall find some facts in your paper on
intermediate varieties in intermediate regions, on which subject I have
found remarkably little information. I cannot tell you how glad I am to hear
that you have attended to the curious point of equatorial refrigeration. I
quite agree that it must have been small; yet the more I go into that question
the more convinced I feel that there was during the Glacial period some
migration from north to south. The sketch in the "Origin" gives a very
meagre account of my fuller MS. essay on this subject.
I shall be particularly obliged for a copy of your paper when published
(118/2. Probably a paper by Bates entitled "Contributions to an Insect Fauna
of the Amazon Valley" ("Trans. Entomol. Soc." Volume V., page 335, 1858-
61).); and if any suggestions occur to me (not that you require any) or
questions, I will write and ask.
I have at once to prepare a new edition of the "Origin," (118/3. Third
Edition, March, 1861.), and I will do myself the pleasure of sending you a
copy; but it will be only very slightly altered.

Cases of neuter ants, divided into castes, with intermediate gradations
(which I imagine are rare) interest me much. See "Origin" on the driver-ant,
page 241 (please look at the passage.)
LETTER 119. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
(119/1. This refers to the first number of the new series of the "Natural
History Review," 1861, a periodical which Huxley was largely instrumental
in founding, and of which he was an editor (see Letter 107). The first series
was published in Dublin, and ran to seven volumes between 1854 and 1860.
The new series came to an end in 1865.)
Down, January, 3rd {1861}.
I have just finished No. 1 of the "Natural History Review," and must
congratulate you, as chiefly concerned, on its excellence. The whole seems
to me admirable,—so admirable that it is impossible that other numbers
should be so good, but it would be foolish to expect it. I am rather a
croaker, and I do rather fear that the merit of the articles will be above the
run of common readers and subscribers. I have been much interested by
your brain article. (119/2. The "Brain article" of Huxley bore the title "On
the Zoological Relations of Man with the Lower Animals," and appeared in
No. 1, January 1861, page 67. It was Mr. Huxley's vindication of the
unqualified contradiction given by him at the Oxford meeting of the British
Association to Professor Owen's assertions as to the difference between the
brains of man and the higher apes. The sentence omitted by Owen in his
lecture before the University of Cambridge was a footnote on the close
structural resemblance between Homo and Pithecus, which occurs in his
paper on the characters of the class Mammalia in the "Linn. Soc. Journal,"
Volume II., 1857, page 20. According to Huxley the lecture, or "Essay on
the Classification of the Mammalia," was, with this omission, a reprint of
the Linnean paper. In "Man's Place in Nature," page 110, note, Huxley
remarks: "Surely it is a little singular that the 'anatomist,' who finds it
'difficult' to 'determine the difference' between Homo and Pithecus, should
yet range them, on anatomical grounds, in distinct sub-classes.") What a
complete and awful smasher (and done like a "buttered angel") it is for
Owen! What a humbug he is to have left out the sentence in the lecture
before the orthodox Cambridge dons! I like Lubbock's paper very much:
how well he writes. (119/3. Sir John Lubbock's paper was a review of
Leydig on the Daphniidae. M'Donnell's was "On the Homologies of the

Electric Organ of the Torpedo," afterwards used in the "Origin" (see Edition
VI., page 150).) M'Donnell, of course, pleases me greatly. But I am very
curious to know who wrote the Protozoa article: I shall hear, if it be not a
secret, from Lubbock. It strikes me as very good, and, by Jove, how Owen
is shown up—"this great and sound reasoner"! By the way, this reminds me
of a passage which I have just observed in Owen's address at Leeds, which
a clever reviewer might turn into good fun. He defines (page xc) and further
on amplifies his definition that creation means "a process he knows not
what." And in a previous sentence he says facts shake his confidence that
the Apteryx in New Zealand and Red Grouse in England are "distinct
creations." So that he has no confidence that these birds were produced by
"processes he knows not what!" To what miserable inconsistencies and
rubbish this truckling to opposite opinions leads the great generaliser!
(119/4. In the "Historical Sketch," which forms part of the later editions of
the "Origin," Mr. Darwin made use of Owen's Leeds Address in the manner
sketched above. See "Origin," Edition VI., page xvii.)
Farewell: I heartily rejoice in the clear merit of this number. I hope Mrs.
Huxley goes on well. Etty keeps much the same, but has not got up to the
same pitch as when you were here. Farewell.
LETTER 120. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, February 25th {1861}.
I am extremely much obliged for your very kind present of your beautiful
work, "Seasons with the Sea-Horses;" and I have no doubt that I shall find
much interesting from so careful and acute an observer as yourself. (120/1.
"Seasons with the Sea-Horses; or, Sporting Adventures in the Northern
Seas." London, 1861. Mr. Lamont (loc. cit., page 273) writes: "The polar
bear seems to me to be nothing more than a variety of the bears inhabiting
Northern Europe, Asia, and America; and it surely requires no very great
stretch of the imagination to suppose that this variety was originally
created, not as we see him now, but by individuals of Ursus arctos in
Siberia, who, finding their means of subsistence running short, and pressed
by hunger, ventured on the ice and caught some seals. These individuals
would find that they could make a subsistence in this way, and would take
up their residence on the shore and gradually take to a life on the ice...Then
it stands to reason that those individuals who might happen to be palest in
colour would have the best chance of succeeding in surprising seals...The
process of Natural Selection would do the rest, and Ursus arctos would in

the course of a few thousands, or a few millions of years, be transformed
into the variety at present known as Ursus maritimus." The author adds the
following footnote (op. cit., page 275): "It will be obvious to any one that I
follow Mr. Darwin in these remarks; and, although the substance of this
chapter was written in Spitzbergen, before "The Origin of Species" was
published, I do not claim any originality for my views; and I also cheerfully
acknowledge that, but for the publication of that work in connection with
the name of so distinguished a naturalist, I never would have ventured to
give to the world my own humble opinions on the subject.")
P.S. I have just been cutting the leaves of your book, and have been very
much pleased and surprised at your note about what you wrote in
Spitzbergen. As you thought it out independently, it is no wonder that you
so clearly understand Natural Selection, which so few of my reviewers do
or pretend not to do.
I never expected to see any one so heroically bold as to defend my bear
illustration. (120/2. "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne
swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost like a
whale, insects in the water."—"Origin," Edition VI., page 141. See Letter
110.) But a man who has done all that you have done must be bold! It is
laughable how often I have been attacked and misrepresented about this
bear. I am much pleased with your remarks, and thank you cordially for
coming to the rescue.
LETTER 121. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER.
(121/1. Mr. Darwin's letters to Mr. Tegetmeier, taken as a whole, give a
striking picture of the amount of assistance which Darwin received from
him during many years. Some citations from these letters given in "Life and
Letters," II., pages 52, 53, show how freely and generously Mr. Tegetmeier
gave his help, and how much his co-operation was valued.
The following letter is given as an example of the questions on which
Darwin sought Mr. Tegetmeier's opinion and guidance.)
Down, March 22 {1861}.
I ought to have answered your last note sooner; but I have been very
busy. How wonderfully successful you have been in breeding Pouters! You
have a good right to be proud of your accuracy of eye and judgment. I am in
the thick of poultry, having just commenced, and shall be truly grateful for

the skulls, if you can send them by any conveyance to the Nag's Head next
Thursday.
You ask about vermilion wax: positively it was not in the state of comb,
but in solid bits and cakes, which were thrown with other rubbish not far
from my hives. You can make any use of the fact you like. Combs could be
concentrically and variously coloured and dates recorded by giving for a
few days wax darkly coloured with vermilion and indigo, and I daresay
other substances. You ask about my crossed fowls, and this leads me to
make a proposition to you, which I hope cannot be offensive to you. I trust
you know me too well to think that I would propose anything objectionable
to the best of my judgment. The case is this: for my object of treating
poultry I must give a sketch of several breeds, with remarks on various
points. I do not feel strong on the subject. Now, when my MS. is fairly
copied in an excellent handwriting, would you read it over, which would
take you at most an hour or two, and make comments in pencil on it; and
accept, like a barrister, a fee, we will say, of a couple of guineas. This would
be a great assistance to me, specially if you would allow me to put a note,
stating that you, a distinguished judge and fancier, had read it over. I would
state that you doubted or concurred, as each case might be, of course
striking out what you were sure was incorrect. There would be little new in
my MS. to you; but if by chance you used any of my facts or conclusions
before I published, I should wish you to state that they were on my
authority; otherwise I shall be accused of stealing from you. There will be
little new, except that perhaps I have consulted some out-of-the-way books,
and have corresponded with some good authorities. Tell me frankly what
you think of this; but unless you will oblige me by accepting remuneration,
I cannot and will not give you such trouble. I have little doubt that several
points will arise which will require investigation, as I care for many points
disregarded by fanciers; and according to any time thus spent, you will, I
trust, allow me to make remuneration. I hope that you will grant me this
favour. There is one assistance which I will now venture to beg of you—
viz., to get me, if you can, another specimen of an old white Angora rabbit.
I want it dead for the skeleton; and not knocked on the head. Secondly, I see
in the "Cottage Gardener" (March 19th, page 375) there are impure half-
lops with one ear quite upright and shorter than the other lopped ear. I much
want a dead one. Baker cannot get one. Baily is looking out; but I want two
specimens. Can you assist me, if you meet any rabbit-fancier? I have had

rabbits with one ear more lopped than the other; but I want one with one ear
quite upright and shorter, and the other quite long and lopped.
LETTER 122. TO H.W. BATES. Down, March 26th {1861}.
I have read your papers with extreme interest, and I have carefully read
every word of them. (122/1. "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the
Amazon Valley." (Read March 5th and November 24th, 1860).
"Entomological Soc. Trans." V., pages 223 and 335).) They seem to me to
be far richer in facts of variation, and especially on the distribution of
varieties and subspecies, than anything which I have read. Hereafter I shall
re-read them, and hope in my future work to profit by them and make use of
them. The amount of variation has much surprised me. The analogous
variation of distinct species in the same regions strikes me as particularly
curious. The greater variability of the female sex is new to me. Your Guiana
case seems in some degree analogous, as far as plants are concerned, with
the modern plains of La Plata, which seem to have been colonised from the
north, but the species have been hardly modified. (122/2. Mr. Bates (page
349) gives reason to believe that the Guiana region should be considered "a
perfectly independent province," and that it has formed a centre "whence
radiated the species which now people the low lands on its borders.")
Would you kindly answer me two or three questions if in your power?
When species A becomes modified in another region into a well-marked
form C, but is connected with it by one (or more) gradational forms B
inhabiting an intermediate region; does this form B generally exist in equal
numbers with A and C, OR INHABIT AN EQUALLY LARGE AREA? The
probability is that you cannot answer this question, though one of your
cases seems to bear on it...
You will, I think, be glad to hear that I now often hear of naturalists
accepting my views more or less fully; but some are curiously cautious in
running the risk of any small odium in expressing their belief.
LETTER 123. TO H.W. BATES. Down, April 4th {1861}.
I have been unwell, so have delayed thanking you for your admirable
letter. I hope you will not think me presumptuous in saying how much I
have been struck with your varied knowledge, and with the decisive manner
in which you bring it to bear on each point,—a rare and most high quality,
as far as my experience goes. I earnestly hope you will find time to publish
largely: before the Linnean Society you might bring boldly out your views

on species. Have you ever thought of publishing your travels, and working
in them the less abstruse parts of your Natural History? I believe it would
sell, and be a very valuable contribution to Natural History. You must also
have seen a good deal of the natives. I know well it would be quite
unreasonable to ask for any further information from you; but I will just
mention that I am now, and shall be for a long time, writing on domestic
varieties of all animals. Any facts would be useful, especially any showing
that savages take any care in breeding their animals, or in rejecting the bad
and preserving the good; or any fancies which they may have that one
coloured or marked dog, etc., is better than another. I have already collected
much on this head, but am greedy for facts. You will at once see their
bearing on variation under domestication.
Hardly anything in your letter has pleased me more than about sexual
selection. In my larger MS. (and indeed in the "Origin" with respect to the
tuft of hairs on the breast of the cock-turkey) I have guarded myself against
going too far; but I did not at all know that male and female butterflies
haunted rather different sites. If I had to cut up myself in a review I would
have {worried?} and quizzed sexual selection; therefore, though I am fully
convinced that it is largely true, you may imagine how pleased I am at what
you say on your belief. This part of your letter to me is a quintessence of
richness. The fact about butterflies attracted by coloured sepals is another
good fact, worth its weight in gold. It would have delighted the heart of old
Christian C. Sprengel—now many years in his grave.
I am glad to hear that you have specially attended to "mimetic" analogies
—a most curious subject; I hope you publish on it. I have for a long time
wished to know whether what Dr. Collingwood asserts is true—that the
most striking cases generally occur between insects inhabiting the same
country.
LETTER 124. TO F.W. HUTTON. Down, April 20th {1861}.
I hope that you will permit me to thank you for sending me a copy of
your paper in "The Geologist" (124/1. In a letter to Hooker (April 23rd?,
1861) Darwin refers to Hutton's review as "very original," and adds that
Hutton is "one of the very few who see that the change of species cannot be
directly proved..." ("Life and Letters," II., page 362). The review appeared
in "The Geologist" (afterwards known as "The Geological Magazine") for
1861, pages 132-6 and 183-8. A letter on "Difficulties of Darwinism" is

published in the same volume of "The Geologist," page 286.), and at the
same time to express my opinion that you have done the subject a real
service by the highly original, striking, and condensed manner with which
you have put the case. I am actually weary of telling people that I do not
pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another, but
that I believe that this view in the main is correct, because so many
phenomena can be thus grouped together and explained. But it is generally
of no use; I cannot make persons see this. I generally throw in their teeth
the universally admitted theory of the undulation of light,—neither the
undulation nor the very existence of ether being proved, yet admitted
because the view explains so much. You are one of the very few who have
seen this, and have now put it most forcibly and clearly. I am much pleased
to see how carefully you have read my book, and, what is far more
important, reflected on so many points with an independent spirit. As I am
deeply interested in the subject (and I hope not exclusively under a personal
point of view) I could not resist venturing to thank you for the right good
service which you have done.
I need hardly say that this note requires no answer.
LETTER 125. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(125/1. Parts of this letter are published in "Life and Letters," II., page
362.)
Down, {April} 23rd, {1861}.
I have been much interested by Bentham's paper in the "Natural History
Review," but it would not, of course, from familiarity, strike you as it did
me. (125/2. This refers to Bentham's paper "On the Species and Genera of
Plants, etc." "Nat. Hist. Review," April, 1861, page 133, which is founded
on, or extracted from, a paper read before the Linn. Soc., November 15th,
1858. It had been originally set down to be read on July 1st, 1858, but gave
way to the papers of Darwin and Wallace. Mr. Bentham has described
("Life and Letters," II., page 294) how he reluctantly cancelled the parts
urging "original fixity" of specific type, and the remainder seems not to
have been published except in the above-quoted paper in the "Nat. Hist.
Review.") I liked the whole—all the facts on the nature of close and varying
species. Good Heavens! to think of the British botanists turning up their
noses and saying that he knows nothing of British plants! I was also pleased
at his remarks on classification, because it showed me that I wrote truly on

this subject in the "Origin." I saw Bentham at the Linnean Society, and had
some talk with him and Lubbock and Edgeworth, Wallich, and several
others. I asked Bentham to give us his ideas of species; whether partially
with us or dead against us, he would write excellent matter. He made no
answer, but his manner made me think he might do so if urged—so do you
attack him. Every one was speaking with affection and anxiety of Henslow.
I dined with Bell at the Linnean Club, and liked my dinner...dining-out is
such a novelty to me that I enjoyed it. Bell has a real good heart. I liked
Rolleston's paper, but I never read anything so obscure and not self-evident
as his "canons." (125/3. See "Nat. Hist. Review," 1861, page 206. The paper
is "On the Brain of the Orang Utang," and forms part of the bitter
controversy of this period to which reference occurs in letters to Huxley and
elsewhere in these volumes. Rolleston's work is quoted by Huxley ("Man's
Place in Nature," page 117) as part of the crushing refutation of Owen's
position. Mr. Huxley's letter referred to above is no doubt that in the
"Athenaeum," April 13th, 1861, page 498; it is certainly severe, but to those
who know Mr. Huxley's "Succinct History of the Controversy," etc. ("Man's
Place in Nature," page 113), it will not seem too severe.) I had a dim
perception of the truth of your profound remark—that he wrote in fear and
trembling "of God, man, and monkeys," but I would alter it into "God, man,
Owen, and monkeys." Huxley's letter was truculent, and I see that every one
thinks it too truculent; but in simple truth I am become quite demoniacal
about Owen—worse than Huxley; and I told Huxley that I should put
myself under his care to be rendered milder. But I mean to try and get more
angelic in my feelings; yet I never shall forget his cordial shake of the hand,
when he was writing as spitefully as he possibly could against me. But I
have always thought that you have more cause than I to be demoniacally
inclined towards him. Bell told me that Owen says that the editor mutilated
his article in the "Edinburgh Review" (125/4. This is the only instance, with
which we are acquainted, of Owen's acknowledging the authorship of the
"Edinburgh Review" article.), and Bell seemed to think it was rendered
more spiteful by the Editor; perhaps the opposite view is as probable. Oh,
dear! this does not look like becoming more angelic in my temper!
I had a splendid long talk with Lyell (you may guess how splendid, for he
was many times on his knees, with elbows on the sofa) (125/5. Mr. Darwin
often spoke of Sir Charles Lyell's tendency to take curious attitudes when
excited.) on his work in France: he seems to have done capital work in

making out the age of the celt-bearing beds, but the case gets more and
more complicated. All, however, tends to greater and greater antiquity of
man. The shingle beds seem to be estuary deposits. I called on R. Chambers
at his very nice house in St. John's Wood, and had a very pleasant half-
hour's talk—he is really a capital fellow. He made one good remark and
chuckled over it: that the laymen universally had treated the controversy on
the "Essays and Reviews" as a merely professional subject, and had not
joined in it but had left it to the clergy. I shall be anxious for your next letter
about Henslow. Farewell, with sincere sympathy, my old friend.
P.S.—We are very much obliged for "London Review." We like reading
much of it, and the science is incomparably better than in the "Athenaeum."
You shall not go on very long sending it, as you will be ruined by pennies
and trouble; but I am under a horrid spell to the "Athenaeum" and
"Gardeners' Chronicle," both of which are intolerably dull, but I have taken
them in for so many years that I cannot give them up. The "Cottage
Gardener," for my purpose, is now far better than the "Gardeners'
Chronicle."
LETTER 126. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, April 25 {1861}.
I received this morning your "Unite de l'Espece Humaine" {published in
1861}, and most sincerely do I thank you for this your very kind present. I
had heard of and been recommended to read your articles, but, not knowing
that they were separately published, did not know how to get them. So your
present is most acceptable, and I am very anxious to see your views on the
whole subject of species and variation; and I am certain to derive much
benefit from your work. In cutting the pages I observe that you have most
kindly mentioned my work several times. My views spread slowly in
England and America; and I am much surprised to find them most
commonly accepted by geologists, next by botanists, and least by
zoologists. I am much pleased that the younger and middle-aged geologists
are coming round, for the arguments from Geology have always seemed
strongest against me. Not one of the older geologists (except Lyell) has
been even shaken in his views of the eternal immutability of species. But so
many of the younger men are turning round with zeal that I look to the
future with some confidence. I am now at work on "Variation under
Domestication," but make slow progress—it is such tedious work
comparing skeletons.

With very sincere thanks for the kind sympathy which you have always
shown me, and with much respect,...
P.S.—I have lately read M. Naudin's paper (126/1. Naudin's paper
("Revue Horticole," 1852) is mentioned in the "Historical Sketch" prefixed
to the later editions of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page xix). Naudin insisted
that species are formed in a manner analogous to the production of varieties
by cultivators, i.e., by selection, "but he does not show how selection acts
under nature." In the "Life and Letters," II., page 246, Darwin, speaking of
Naudin's work, says: "Decaisne seems to think he gives my whole theory."),
but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not show how
selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer (126/2. The
obscure writer is Patrick Matthew (see the "Historical Sketch" in the
"Origin.") on forest trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly and clearly
anticipated my views—though he put the case so briefly that no single
person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book.
LETTER 127. TO L. HINDMARSH.
(127/1. The following letter was in reply to one from Mr. Hindmarsh, to
whom Mr. Darwin had written asking for information on the average
number of animals killed each year in the Chillingham herd. The object of
the request was to obtain information which might throw light on the rate of
increase of the cattle relatively to those on the pampas of South America.
Mr. Hindmarsh had contributed a paper "On the Wild Cattle of Chillingham
Park" to the "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume II., page 274, 1839.)
Down, May 12th {1861}.
I thank you sincerely for your prompt and great kindness, and return the
letter, which I have been very glad to see and have had copied. The increase
is more rapid than I anticipated, but it seems rather conjectural; I had hoped
that in so interesting a case some exact record had been kept. The number
of births, or of calves reared till they followed their mothers, would perhaps
have been the best datum. From Mr. Hardy's letter I infer that ten must be
annually born to make up the deaths from various causes. In Paraguay,
Azara states that in a herd of 4,000, from 1,000 to 1,300 are reared; but
then, though they do not kill calves, but castrate the young bulls, no doubt
the oxen would be killed earlier than the cows, so that the herd would
contain probably more of the female sex than the herd at Chillingham.
There is not apparently any record whether more young bulls are killed than

cows. I am surprised that Lord Tankerville does not have an exact record
kept of deaths and sexes and births: after a dozen years it would be an
interesting statistical record to the naturalist and agriculturist.
(PLATE: PROFESSOR HENSLOW.) LETTER 128. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(128/1. The death of Professor Henslow (who was Sir J.D. Hooker's
father-in-law) occurred on May 16th, 1861.)
Down, May 24th {1861}.
Thanks for your two notes. I am glad that the burial is over, and sincerely
sympathise and can most fully understand your feelings at your loss.
I grieve to think how little I saw of Henslow for many years. With respect
to a biography of Henslow, I cannot help feeling rather doubtful, on the
principle that a biography could not do him justice. His letters were
generally written in a hurry, and I fear he did not keep any journal or diary.
If there were any vivid materials to describe his life as parish priest, and
manner of managing the poor, it would be very good.
I am never very sanguine on literary projects. I cannot help fearing his
Life might turn out flat. There can hardly be marked incidents to describe. I
sincerely hope that I take a wrong and gloomy view, but I cannot help
fearing—I would rather see no Life than one that would interest very few. It
will be a pleasure and duty in me to consider what I can recollect; but at
present I can think of scarcely anything. The equability and perfection of
Henslow's whole character, I should think, would make it very difficult for
any one to pourtray him. I have been thinking about Henslow all day a good
deal, but the more I think the less I can think of to write down. It is quite a
new style for me to set about, but I will continue to think what I could say
to give any, however imperfect, notion of him in the old Cambridge days.
Pray give my kindest remembrances to L. Jenyns (128/2. The Rev.
Leonard Jenyns (afterwards Blomefield) undertook the "Life" of Henslow,
to which Darwin contributed a characteristic and delightful sketch. See
Letter 17.), who is often associated with my recollection of those old happy
days.
LETTER 129. HENRY FAWCETT TO CHARLES DARWIN.
(129/1. It was in reply to the following letter that Darwin wrote to
Fawcett: "You could not possibly have told me anything which would have
given me more satisfaction than what you say about Mr. Mill's opinion.

Until your review appeared I began to think that perhaps I did not
understand at all how to reason scientifically." ("Life of Henry Fawcett," by
Leslie Stephen, 1885, page 100.)
Bodenham, Salisbury, July 16th {1861}.
I feel that I ought not to have so long delayed writing to thank you for
your very kind letter to me about my article on your book in "Macmillan's
Magazine."
I was particularly anxious to point out that the method of investigation
pursued was in every respect philosophically correct. I was spending an
evening last week with my friend Mr. John Stuart Mill, and I am sure you
will be pleased to hear from such an authority that he considers that your
reasoning throughout is in the most exact accordance with the strict
principles of logic. He also says the method of investigation you have
followed is the only one proper to such a subject.
It is easy for an antagonistic reviewer, when he finds it difficult to answer
your arguments, to attempt to dispose of the whole matter by uttering some
such commonplace as "This is not a Baconian induction."
I expect shortly to be spending a few days in your neighbourhood, and if
I should not be intruding upon you, I should esteem it a great favour if you
will allow me to call on you, and have half an hour's conversation with you.
As far as I am personally concerned, I am sure I ought to be grateful to
you, for since my accident nothing has given me so much pleasure as the
perusal of your book. Such studies are now a great resource to me.
LETTER 130. TO C. LYELL. 2, Hesketh Terrace, Torquay {August 2nd,
1861}.
I declare that you read the reviews on the "Origin" more carefully than I
do. I agree with all your remarks. The point of correlation struck me as well
put, and on varieties growing together; but I have already begun to put
things in train for information on this latter head, on which Bronn also
enlarges. With respect to sexuality, I have often speculated on it, and have
always concluded that we are too ignorant to speculate: no physiologist can
conjecture why the two elements go to form a new being, and, more than
that, why nature strives at uniting the two elements from two individuals.
What I am now working at in my orchids is an admirable illustration of the
law. I should certainly conclude that all sexuality had descended from one

prototype. Do you not underrate the degree of lowness of organisation in
which sexuality occurs—viz., in Hydra, and still lower in some of the one-
celled free confervae which "conjugate," which good judges (Thwaites)
believe is the simplest form of true sexual generation? (130/1. See Letter
97.) But the whole case is a mystery.
There is another point on which I have occasionally wished to say a few
words. I believe you think with Asa Gray that I have not allowed enough for
the stream of variation having been guided by a higher power. I have had
lately a good deal of correspondence on this head. Herschel, in his
"Physical Geography" (130/2. "Physical Geography of the Globe," by Sir
John F.W. Herschel, Edinburgh, 1861. On page 12 Herschel writes of the
revelations of Geology pointing to successive submersions and
reconstructions of the continents and fresh races of animals and plants. He
refers to a "great law of change" which has not operated either by a
gradually progressing variation of species, nor by a sudden and total
abolition of one race...The following footnote on page 12 of the "Physical
Geography" was added in January, 1861: "This was written previous to the
publication of Mr. Darwin's work on the "Origin of Species," a work which,
whatever its merit or ingenuity, we cannot, however, consider as having
disproved the view taken in the text. We can no more accept the principle of
arbitrary and casual variation and natural selection as a sufficient account,
per se, of the past and present organic world, than we can receive the
Laputan method of composing books (pushed a outrance) as a sufficient one
of Shakespeare and the "Principia." Equally in either case an intelligence,
guided by a purpose, must be continually in action to bias the directions of
the steps of change—to regulate their amount, to limit their divergence, and
to continue them in a definite course. We do not believe that Mr. Darwin
means to deny the necessity of such intelligent direction. But it does not, so
far as we can see, enter into the formula of this law, and without it we are
unable to conceive how far the law can have led to the results. On the other
hand, we do not mean to deny that such intelligence may act according to a
law (that is to say, on a preconceived and definite plan). Such law, stated in
words, would be no other than the actual observed law of organic
succession; a one more general, taking that form when applied to our own
planet, and including all the links of the chain which have disappeared.
BUT THE ONE LAW IS A NECESSARY SUPPLEMENT TO THE
OTHER, AND OUGHT, IN ALL LOGICAL PROPRIETY, TO FORM A

PART OF ITS ENUNCIATION. Granting this, and with some demur as to
the genesis of man, we are far from disposed to repudiate the view taken of
this mysterious subject in Mr. Darwin's book." The sentence in italics is no
doubt the one referred to in the letter to Lyell. See Letter 243.), has a
sentence with respect to the "Origin," something to the effect that the higher
law of Providential Arrangement should always be stated. But astronomers
do not state that God directs the course of each comet and planet. The view
that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make
Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of
the appearance of new species out of the range of science. But what makes
me most object to Asa Gray's view is the study of the extreme variability of
domestic animals. He who does not suppose that each variation in the
pigeon was providentially caused, by accumulating which variations, man
made a Fantail, cannot, I think, logically argue that the tail of the
woodpecker was formed by variations providentially ordained. It seems to
me that variations in the domestic and wild conditions are due to unknown
causes, and are without purpose, and in so far accidental; and that they
become purposeful only when they are selected by man for his pleasure, or
by what we call Natural Selection in the struggle for life, and under
changing conditions. I do not wish to say that God did not foresee
everything which would ensue; but here comes very nearly the same sort of
wretched imbroglio as between freewill and preordained necessity. I doubt
whether I have made what I think clear; but certainly A. Gray's notion of the
courses of variation having been led like a stream of water by gravity,
seems to me to smash the whole affair. It reminds me of a Spaniard whom I
told I was trying to make out how the Cordillera was formed; and he
answered me that it was useless, for "God made them." It may be said that
God foresaw how they would be made. I wonder whether Herschel would
say that you ought always to give the higher providential law, and declare
that God had ordered all certain changes of level, that certain mountains
should arise. I must think that such views of Asa Gray and Herschel merely
show that the subject in their minds is in Comte's theological stage of
science...
Of course I do not want any answer to my quasi-theological discussion,
but only for you to think of my notions, if you understand them.
I hope to Heaven your long and great labours on your new edition are
drawing to a close.

LETTER 131. TO C. LYELL. Torquay, {August 13th, 1861}.
Very many thanks for the orchids, which have proved extremely useful to
me in two ways I did not anticipate, but were too monstrous (yet of some
use) for my special purpose.
When you come to "Deification" (131/1. See Letter 105, note.), ask
yourself honestly whether what you are thinking applies to the endless
variations of domestic productions, which man accumulates for his mere
fancy or use. No doubt these are all caused by some unknown law, but I
cannot believe they were ordained for any purpose, and if not so ordained
under domesticity, I can see no reason to believe that they were ordained in
a state of nature. Of course it may be said, when you kick a stone, or a leaf
falls from a tree, that it was ordained, before the foundations of the world
were laid, exactly where that stone or leaf should lie. In this sense the
subject has no interest for me.
Once again, many thanks for the orchids; you must let me repay you
what you paid the collector.
LETTER 132. TO C. LYELL.
(132/1. The first paragraph probably refers to the proof-sheets of Lyell's
"Antiquity of Man," but the passage referred to seems not to occur in the
book.)
Torquay, August 21st {1861}.
...I have really no criticism, except a trifling one in pencil near the end,
which I have inserted on account of dominant and important species
generally varying most. You speak of "their views" rather as if you were a
thousand miles away from such wretches, but your concluding paragraph
shows that you are one of the wretches.
I am pleased that you approve of Hutton's review. (132/2. "Some
Remarks on Mr. Darwin's Theory," by F.W. Hutton. "Geologist," Volume
IV., page 132 (1861). See Letter 124.) It seemed to me to take a more
philosophical view of the manner of judging the question than any other
review. The sentence you quote from it seems very true, but I do not agree
with the theological conclusion. I think he quotes from Asa Gray, certainly
not from me; but I have neither A. Gray nor "Origin" with me. Indeed, I
have over and over again said in the "Origin" that Natural Selection does
nothing without variability; I have given a whole chapter on laws, and used

the strongest language how ignorant we are on these laws. But I agree that I
have somehow (Hooker says it is owing to my title) not made the great and
manifest importance of previous variability plain enough. Breeders
constantly speak of Selection as the one great means of improvement; but
of course they imply individual differences, and this I should have thought
would have been obvious to all in Natural Selection; but it has not been so.
I have just said that I cannot agree with "which variations are the effects
of an unknown law, ordained and guided without doubt by an intelligent
cause on a preconceived and definite plan." Will you honestly tell me (and I
should be really much obliged) whether you believe that the shape of my
nose (eheu!) was ordained and "guided by an intelligent cause?" (132/3. It
should be remembered that the shape of his nose nearly determined Fitz-
Roy to reject Darwin as naturalist to H.M.S. "Beagle" ("Life and Letters,"
I., page 60).) By the selection of analogous and less differences fanciers
make almost generic differences in their pigeons; and can you see any good
reason why the Natural Selection of analogous individual differences
should not make new species? If you say that God ordained that at some
time and place a dozen slight variations should arise, and that one of them
alone should be preserved in the struggle for life and the other eleven
should perish in the first or few first generations, then the saying seems to
me mere verbiage. It comes to merely saying that everything that is, is
ordained.
Let me add another sentence. Why should you or I speak of variation as
having been ordained and guided, more than does an astronomer, in
discussing the fall of a meteoric stone? He would simply say that it was
drawn to our earth by the attraction of gravity, having been displaced in its
course by the action of some quite unknown laws. Would you have him say
that its fall at some particular place and time was "ordained and guided
without doubt by an intelligent cause on a preconceived and definite plan"?
Would you not call this theological pedantry or display? I believe it is not
pedantry in the case of species, simply because their formation has hitherto
been viewed as beyond law; in fact, this branch of science is still with most
people under its theological phase of development. The conclusion which I
always come to after thinking of such questions is that they are beyond the
human intellect; and the less one thinks on them the better. You may say,
Then why trouble me? But I should very much like to know clearly what
you think.

LETTER 133. TO HENRY FAWCETT.
(133/1. The following letter was published in the "Life" of Mr. Fawcett
(1885); we are indebted to Mrs. Fawcett and Messrs. Smith & Elder for
permission to reprint it. See Letter 129.)
September 18th {1861}.
I wondered who had so kindly sent me the newspaper (133/2. The
newspaper sent was the "Manchester Examiner" for September 9th, 1861,
containing a report of Mr. Fawcett's address given before Section D of the
British Association, "On the method of Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the
origin of species," in which the speaker showed that the "method of
investigation pursued by Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the origin of species
is in strict accordance with the principles of logic." The "A" of the letter (as
published in Fawcett's Life) is the late Professor Williamson, who is
reported to have said that "while he would not say that Mr. Darwin's book
had caused him a loss of reputation, he was sure that it had not caused a
gain." The reference to "B" is explained by the report of the late Dr.
Lankester's speech in which he said, "The facts brought forward in support
of the hypothesis had a very different value indeed from that of the
hypothesis...A great naturalist, who was still a friend of Mr. Darwin, once
said to him (Dr. Lankester), 'The mistake is, that Darwin has dealt with
origin. Why did he not put his facts before us, and let them rest?'" Another
speaker, the Rt. Hon. J.R. Napier, remarked: "I am going to speak closely to
the question. If the hypothesis is put forward to contradict facts, and the
averments are contrary to the Word of God, I say that it is not a logical
argument." At this point the chairman, Professor Babington, wisely
interfered, on the ground that the meeting was a scientific one.), which I
was very glad to see; and now I have to thank you sincerely for allowing me
to see your MS. It seems to me very good and sound; though I am certainly
not an impartial judge. You will have done good service in calling the
attention of scientific men to means and laws of philosophising. As far as I
could judge by the papers, your opponents were unworthy of you. How
miserably A. talked of my reputation, as if that had anything to do with
it!...How profoundly ignorant B must be of the very soul of observation!
About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to
observe and not theorise; and I well remember some one saying that at this
rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and

describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all
observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!
I have returned only lately from a two months' visit to Torquay, which did
my health at the time good; but I am one of those miserable creatures who
are never comfortable for twenty-four hours; and it is clear to me that I
ought to be exterminated. I have been rather idle of late, or, speaking more
strictly, working at some miscellaneous papers, which, however, have some
direct bearing on the subject of species; yet I feel guilty at having neglected
my larger book. But, to me, observing is much better sport than writing. I
fear that I shall have wearied you with this long note.
Pray believe that I feel sincerely grateful that you have taken up the
cudgels in defence of the line of argument in the "Origin;" you will have
benefited the subject.
Many are so fearful of speaking out. A German naturalist came here the
other day; and he tells me that there are many in Germany on our side, but
that all seem fearful of speaking out, and waiting for some one to speak,
and then many will follow. The naturalists seem as timid as young ladies
should be, about their scientific reputation. There is much discussion on the
subject on the Continent, even in quiet Holland; and I had a pamphlet from
Moscow the other day by a man who sticks up famously for the
imperfection of the "Geological Record," but complains that I have sadly
understated the variability of the old fossilised animals! But I must not run
on.
LETTER 134. TO H.W. BATES. Down, September 25th {1861}.
Now for a few words on science. Many thanks for facts on neuters. You
cannot tell how I rejoice that you do not think what I have said on the
subject absurd. Only two persons have even noticed it to me—viz., the
bitter sneer of Owen in the "Edinburgh Review" (134/1. "Edinburgh
Review," April, 1860, page 525.), and my good friend and supporter, Sir C.
Lyell, who could only screw up courage to say, "Well, you have manfully
faced the difficulty."
What a wonderful case of Volucella of which I had never heard. (134/2.
Volucella is a fly—one of the Syrphidae—supposed to supply a case of
mimicry; this was doubtless the point of interest with Bates. Dr. Sharp says
{"Insects," Part II. (in the Camb. Nat. Hist. series), 1899, page 500}: "It was
formerly assumed that the Volucella larvae lived on the larvae of the bees,

and that the parent flies were providentially endowed with a bee-like
appearance that they might obtain entrance into the bees' nests without
being detected." Dr. Sharp goes on to say that what little is known on the
subject supports the belief that the "presence of the Volucella in the nests is
advantageous to both fly and bee.") I had no idea such a case occurred in
nature; I must get and see specimens in British Museum. I hope and
suppose you will give a good deal of Natural History in your Travels; every
one cares about ants—more notice has been taken about slave-ants in the
"Origin" than of any other passage.
I fully expect to delight in your Travels. Keep to simple style, as in your
excellent letters,—but I beg pardon, I am again advising.
What a capital paper yours will be on mimetic resemblances! You will
make quite a new subject of it. I had thought of such cases as a difficulty;
and once, when corresponding with Dr. Collingwood, I thought of your
explanation; but I drove it from my mind, for I felt that I had not knowledge
to judge one way or the other. Dr C., I think, states that the mimetic forms
inhabit the same country, but I did not know whether to believe him. What
wonderful cases yours seem to be! Could you not give a few woodcuts in
your Travels to illustrate this? I am tired with a hard day's work, so no
more, except to give my sincere thanks and hearty wishes for the success of
your Travels.
LETTER 135. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 18th {1862}.
Your letter discusses lots of interesting subjects, and I am very glad you
have sent for your letter to Bates. (135/1. Published in Mr. Clodd's memoir
of Bates in the "Naturalist on the Amazons," 1892, page l.) What do you
mean by "individual plants"? (135/2. In a letter to Mr. Darwin dated March
17th, 1862, Sir J.D. Hooker had discussed a supposed difference between
animals and plants, "inasmuch as the individual animal is certainly changed
materially by external conditions, the latter (I think) never, except in such a
coarse way as stunting or enlarging—e.g. no increase of cold on the spot, or
change of individual plant from hot to cold, will induce said individual
plant to get more woolly covering; but I suppose a series of cold seasons
would bring about such a change in an individual quadruped, just as rowing
will harden hands, etc.") I fancied a bud lived only a year, and you could
hardly expect any change in that time; but if you call a tree or plant an
individual, you have sporting buds. Perhaps you mean that the whole tree

does not change. Tulips, in "breaking," change. Fruit seems certainly
affected by the stock. I think I have (135/3. See note, Letter 16.) got cases
of slight change in alpine plants transplanted. All these subjects have rather
gone out of my head owing to orchids, but I shall soon have to enter on
them in earnest when I come again to my volume on variation under
domestication.
...In the lifetime of an animal you would, I think, find it very difficult to
show effects of external condition on animals more than shade and light,
good and bad soil, produce on a plant.
You speak of "an inherent tendency to vary wholly independent of
physical conditions"! This is a very simple way of putting the case (as Dr.
Prosper Lucas also puts it) (135/4. Prosper Lucas, the author of "Traite
philosophique et physiologique de l'heredite naturelle dans les etats de sante
et de maladie du systeme nerveux": 2 volumes, Paris, 1847-50.): but two
great classes of facts make me think that all variability is due to change in
the conditions of life: firstly, that there is more variability and more
monstrosities (and these graduate into each other) under unnatural domestic
conditions than under nature; and, secondly, that changed conditions affect
in an especial manner the reproductive organs—those organs which are to
produce a new being. But why one seedling out of thousands presents some
new character transcends the wildest powers of conjecture. It was in this
sense that I spoke of "climate," etc., possibly producing without selection a
hooked seed, or any not great variation. (135/5. This statement probably
occurs in a letter, and not in Darwin's published works.)
I have for years and years been fighting with myself not to attribute too
much to Natural Selection—to attribute something to direct action of
conditions; and perhaps I have too much conquered my tendency to lay
hardly any stress on conditions of life.
I am not shaken about "saltus" (135/6. Sir Joseph had written, March
17th, 1862: "Huxley is rather disposed to think you have overlooked saltus,
but I am not sure that he is right—saltus quoad individuals is not saltus
quoad species—as I pointed out in the Begonia case, though perhaps that
was rather special pleading in the present state of science." For the Begonia
case, see "Life and Letters," II., page 275, also letter 110, page 166.), I did
not write without going pretty carefully into all the cases of normal
structure in animals resembling monstrosities which appear per saltus.

LETTER 136. TO J.D. HOOKER. 26th {March, 1862}.
Thanks also for your own (136/1. See note in Letter 135.) and Bates'
letter now returned. They are both excellent; you have, I think, said all that
can be said against direct effects of conditions, and capitally put. But I still
stick to my own and Bates' side. Nevertheless I am pleased to attribute little
to conditions, and I wish I had done what you suggest—started on the
fundamental principle of variation being an innate principle, and afterwards
made a few remarks showing that hereafter, perhaps, this principle would be
explicable. Whenever my book on poultry, pigeons, ducks, and rabbits is
published, with all the measurements and weighings of bones, I think you
will see that "use and disuse" at least have some effect. I do not believe in
perfect reversion. I rather demur to your doctrine of "centrifugal variation."
(136/2. The "doctrine of centrifugal variation" is given in Sir J.D. Hooker's
"Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania" (Part III. of the Botany of the
Antarctic Expedition), 1859, page viii. In paragraph 10 the author writes:
"The tendency of varieties, both in nature and under cultivation...is rather to
depart more and more widely from the original type than to revert to it." In
Sir Joseph's letter to Bates (loc. cit., page lii) he wrote: "Darwin also
believes in some reversion to type which is opposed to my view of
variation." It may be noted in this connection that Mr. Galton has shown
reason to believe in a centripetal tendency in variation (to use Hooker's
phraseology) which is not identical with the reversion of cultivated plants to
their ancestors, the case to which Hooker apparently refers. See "Natural
Inheritance," by F. Galton, 1889.) I suppose you do not agree with or do not
remember my doctrine of the good of diversification (136/3. Darwin usually
used the word "divergence" in this connection.); this seems to me amply to
account for variation being centrifugal—if you forget it, look at this
discussion (page 117 of 3rd edition), it was the best point which, according
to my notions, I made out, and it has always pleased me. It is really
curiously satisfactory to me to see so able a man as Bates (and yourself)
believing more fully in Natural Selection than I think I even do myself.
(136/4. This refers to a very interesting passage in Hooker's letter to Bates
(loc. cit., page liii): "I am sure that with you, as with me, the more you think
the less occasion you will see for anything but time and natural selection to
effect change; and that this view is the simplest and clearest in the present
state of science is one advantage, at any rate. Indeed, I think that it is, in the
present state of the inquiry, the legitimate position to take up; it is time

enough to bother our heads with the secondary cause when there is some
evidence of it or some demand for it—at present I do not see one or the
other, and so feel inclined to renounce any other for the present.") By the
way, I always boast to you, and so I think Owen will be wrong that my
book will be forgotten in ten years, for a French edition is now going
through the press and a second German edition wanted. Your long letter to
Bates has set my head working, and makes me repent of the nine months
spent on orchids; though I know not why I should not have amused myself
on them as well as slaving on bones of ducks and pigeons, etc. The orchids
have been splendid sport, though at present I am fearfully sick of them.
I enclose a waste copy of woodcut of Mormodes ignea; I wish you had a
plant at Kew, for I am sure its wonderful mechanism and structure would
amuse you. Is it not curious the way the labellum sits on the top of the
column?—here insects alight and are beautifully shot, when they touch a
certain sensitive point, by the pollinia.
How kindly you have helped me in my work! Farewell, my dear old
fellow.
LETTER 137. TO H.W. BATES. Down, May 4th {1862}.
Hearty thanks for your most interesting letter and three very valuable
extracts. I am very glad that you have been looking at the South Temperate
insects. I wish that the materials in the British Museum had been richer; but
I should think the case of the South American Carabi, supported by some
other case, would be worth a paper. To us who theorise I am sure the case is
very important. Do the South American Carabi differ more from the other
species than do, for instance, the Siberian and European and North
American and Himalayan (if the genus exists there)? If they do, I entirely
agree with you that the difference would be too great to account for by the
recent Glacial period. I agree, also, with you in utterly rejecting an
independent origin for these Carabi. There is a difficulty, as far as I know, in
our ignorance whether insects change quickly in time; you could judge of
this by knowing how far closely allied coleoptera generally have much
restricted ranges, for this almost implies rapid change. What a curious case
is offered by land-shells, which become modified in every sub-district, and
have yet retained the same general structure from very remote geological
periods! When working at the Glacial period, I remember feeling much
surprised how few birds, no mammals, and very few sea-mollusca seemed

to have crossed, or deeply entered, the inter-tropical regions during the cold
period. Insects, from all you say, seem to come under the same category.
Plants seem to migrate more readily than animals. Do not underrate the
length of Glacial period: Forbes used to argue that it was equivalent to the
whole of the Pleistocene period in the warmer latitudes. I believe, with you,
that we shall be driven to an older Glacial period.
I am very sorry to hear about the British Museum; it would be hopeless
to contend against any one supported by Owen. Perhaps another chance
might occur before very long. How would it be to speak to Owen as soon as
your own mind is made up? From what I have heard, since talking to you, I
fear the strongest personal interest with a Minister is requisite for a pension.
Farewell, and may success attend the acerrimo pro-pugnatori.
P.S. I deeply wish you could find some situation in which you could give
your time to science; it would be a great thing for science and for yourself.
LETTER 138. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, July 11th {1862}.
I thank you cordially for so kindly and promptly answering my questions.
I will quote some of your remarks. The case seems to me of some
importance with reference to my heretical notions, for it shows how larvae
might be modified. I shall not publish, I daresay, for a year, for much time is
expended in experiments. If within this time you should acquire any fresh
information on the similarity of the moths of distinct races, and would allow
me to quote any facts on your authority, I should feel very grateful.
I thank you for your great kindness with respect to the translation of the
"Origin;" it is very liberal in you, as we differ to a considerable degree. I
have been atrociously abused by my religious countrymen; but as I live an
independent life in the country, it does not in the least hurt me in any way,
except indeed when the abuse comes from an old friend like Professor
Owen, who abuses me and then advances the doctrine that all birds are
probably descended from one parent.
I wish the translator (138/1. Mdlle. Royer, who translated the first French
edition of the "Origin.') had known more of Natural History; she must be a
clever but singular lady, but I never heard of her till she proposed to
translate my book.
LETTER 139. TO ASA GRAY. Down, July 23rd {1862}.

I received several days ago two large packets, but have as yet read only
your letter; for we have been in fearful distress, and I could attend to
nothing. Our poor boy had the rare case of second rash and sore throat...;
and, as if this was not enough, a most serious attack of erysipelas, with
typhoid symptoms. I despaired of his life; but this evening he has eaten one
mouthful, and I think has passed the crisis. He has lived on port wine every
three-quarters of an hour, day and night. This evening, to our astonishment,
he asked whether his stamps were safe, and I told him of one sent by you,
and that he should see it to-morrow. He answered, "I should awfully like to
see it now"; so with difficulty he opened his eyelids and glanced at it, and,
with a sigh of satisfaction, said, "All right." Children are one's greatest
happiness, but often and often a still greater misery. A man of science ought
to have none—perhaps not a wife; for then there would be nothing in this
wide world worth caring for, and a man might (whether he could is another
question) work away like a Trojan. I hope in a few days to get my brains in
order, and then I will pick out all your orchid letters, and return them in
hopes of your making use of them...
Of all the carpenters for knocking the right nail on the head, you are the
very best; no one else has perceived that my chief interest in my orchid
book has been that it was a "flank movement" on the enemy. I live in such
solitude that I hear nothing, and have no idea to what you allude about
Bentham and the orchids and species. But I must enquire.
By the way, one of my chief enemies (the sole one who has annoyed me),
namely Owen, I hear has been lecturing on birds; and admits that all have
descended from one, and advances as his own idea that the oceanic
wingless birds have lost their wings by gradual disuse. He never alludes to
me, or only with bitter sneers, and coupled with Buffon and the "Vestiges."
Well, it has been an amusement to me this first evening, scribbling as
egotistically as usual about myself and my doings; so you must forgive me,
as I know well your kind heart will do. I have managed to skim the
newspaper, but had not heart to read all the bloody details. Good God! What
will the end be? Perhaps we are too despondent here; but I must think you
are too hopeful on your side of the water. I never believed the "canards" of
the army of the Potomac having capitulated. My good dear wife and self are
come to wish for peace at any price. Good night, my good friend. I will
scribble on no more.

One more word. I should like to hear what you think about what I say in
the last chapter of the orchid book on the meaning and cause of the endless
diversity of means for the same general purpose. It bears on design, that
endless question. Good night, good night!
LETTER 140. TO C. LYELL. 1, Carlton Terrace, Southampton, August
22nd {1862}.
You say that the Bishop and Owen will be down on you (140/1. This
refers to the "Antiquity of Man," which was published in 1863.): the latter
hardly can, for I was assured that Owen, in his lectures this spring,
advanced as a new idea that wingless birds had lost their wings by disuse.
(140/2. The first paragraph of this letter was published in "Life and Letters,"
II., pages 387, 388.) Also that magpies stole spoons, etc., from a remnant of
some instinct like that of the bower-bird, which ornaments its playing
passage with pretty feathers. Indeed, I am told that he hinted plainly that all
birds are descended from one. What an unblushing man he must be to
lecture thus after abusing me so, and never to have openly retracted, or
alluded to my book!
LETTER 141. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (LORD AVEBURY). Cliff
Cottage, Bournemouth, September 5th {1862}.
Many thanks for your pleasant note in return for all my stupid trouble. I
did not fully appreciate your insect-diving case (141/1. "On two Aquatic
Hymenoptera, one of which uses its Wings in Swimming." By John
Lubbock. "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., 1864, pages 135-42.) {Read
May 7th, 1863.} In this paper Lubbock describes a new species of
Polynema—P. natans—which swims by means of its wings, and is capable
of living under water for several hours; the other species, referred to a new
genus Prestwichia, lives under water, holds its wings motionless and uses
its legs as oars.) before your last note, nor had I any idea that the fact was
new, though new to me. It is really very interesting. Of course you will
publish an account of it. You will then say whether the insect can fly well
through the air. (141/2. In describing the habits of Polynema, Lubbock
writes, "I was unfortunately unable to ascertain whether they could fly"
(loc. cit., page 137).) My wife asked, "How did he find that it stayed four
hours under water without breathing?" I answered at once: "Mrs. Lubbock
sat four hours watching." I wonder whether I am right.

I long to be at home and at steady work, and I hope we may be in another
month. I fear it is hopeless my coming to you, for I am squashier than ever,
but hope two shower-baths a day will give me a little strength, so that you
will, I hope, come to us. It is an age since I have seen you or any scientific
friend.
I heard from Lyell the other day in the Isle of Wight, and from Hooker in
Scotland. About Huxley I know nothing, but I hope his book progresses, for
I shall be very curious to see it. (141/3. "Man's Place in Nature." London,
1863.)
I do nothing here except occasionally look at a few flowers, and there are
very few here, for the country is wonderfully barren.
See what it is to be well trained. Horace said to me yesterday, "If every
one would kill adders they would come to sting less." I answered: "Of
course they would, for there would be fewer." He replied indignantly: "I did
not mean that; but the timid adders which run away would be saved, and in
time would never sting at all." Natural selection of cowards!
LETTER 142. H. FALCONER TO CHARLES DARWIN.
(142/1. This refers to the MS. of Falconer's paper "On the American
Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi,
Falc.)," published in the "Natural History Review," January, 1863, page 43.
The section dealing with the bearing of his facts on Darwin's views is at
page 77. He insists strongly (page 78) on the "persistence and uniformity of
the characters of the molar teeth in the earliest known mammoth, and his
most modern successor." Nevertheless, he adds that the "inferences I draw
from these facts are not opposed to one of the leading propositions of
Darwin's theory." These admissions were the more satisfactory since, as
Falconer points out (page 77), "I have been included by him in the category
of those who have vehemently maintained the persistence of specific
characters.")
21, Park Crescent, Portland Place, N.W., September 24th {1862}.
Do not be frightened at the enclosure. I wish to set myself right by you
before I go to press. I am bringing out a heavy memoir on elephants—an
omnium gatherum affair, with observations on the fossil and recent species.
One section is devoted to the persistence in time of the specific characters
of the mammoth. I trace him from before the Glacial period, through it and
after it, unchangeable and unchanged as far as the organs of digestion

(teeth) and locomotion are concerned. Now, the Glacial period was no joke:
it would have made ducks and drakes of your dear pigeons and doves.
With all my shortcomings, I have such a sincere and affectionate regard
for you and such admiration of your work, that I should be pained to find
that I had expressed my honest convictions in a way that would be open to
any objection by you. The reasoning may be very stupid, but I believe that
the observation is sound. Will you, therefore, look over the few pages which
I have sent, and tell me whether you find any flaw, or whether you think I
should change the form of expression? You have been so unhandsomely and
uncandidly dealt with by a friend of yours and mine that I should be sorry to
find myself in the position of an opponent to you, and more particularly
with the chance of making a fool of myself.
I met your brother yesterday, who tells me you are coming to town. I
hope you will give me a hail. I long for a jaw with you, and have much to
speak to you about.
You will have seen the eclaircissement about the Eocene monkeys of
England. By a touch of the conjuring wand they have been metamorphosed
—a la Darwin—into Hyracotherian pigs. (142/2. "On the Hyracotherian
Character of the Lower Molars of the supposed Macacus from the Eocene
Sand of Kyson, Suffolk." "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume X., 1862, page
240. In this note Owen stated that the teeth which he had named Macacus
("Ann. Mag." 1840, page 191) most probably belonged to Hyracotherium
cuniculus. See "A Catalogue of British Fossil Vertebrata," A.S. Woodward
and C.D. Sherborn, 1890, under Hyracotherium, page 356; also Zittel's
"Handbuch der Palaeontologie" Abth. I., Bd. IV., Leipzig, 1891-93, page
703.) Would you believe it? This even is a gross blunder. They are not pigs.
LETTER 143. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, October 1st {1862}.
On my return home yesterday I found your letter and MS., which I have
read with extreme interest. Your note and every word in your paper are
expressed with the same kind feeling which I have experienced from you
ever since I have had the happiness of knowing you. I value scientific
praise, but I value incomparably higher such kind feeling as yours. There is
not a single word in your paper to which I could possibly object: I should be
mad to do so; its only fault is perhaps its too great kindness. Your case
seems the most striking one which I have met with of the persistence of
specific characters. It is very much the more striking as it relates to the

molar teeth, which differ so much in the species of the genus, and in which
consequently I should have expected variation. As I read on I felt not a little
dumbfounded, and thought to myself that whenever I came to this subject I
should have to be savage against myself; and I wondered how savage you
would be. I trembled a little. My only hope was that something could be
made out of the bog N. American forms, which you rank as a geographical
race; and possibly hereafter out of the Sicilian species. Guess, then, my
satisfaction when I found that you yourself made a loophole (143/1. This
perhaps refers to a passage ("N.H. Review," 1863, page 79) in which
Falconer allows the existence of intermediate forms along certain possible
lines of descent. Falconer's reference to the Sicilian elephants is in a note on
page 78; the bog-elephant is mentioned on page 79.), which I never, of
course, could have guessed at; and imagine my still greater satisfaction at
your expressing yourself as an unbeliever in the eternal immutability of
species. Your final remarks on my work are too generous, but have given
me not a little pleasure. As for criticisms, I have only small ones. When you
speak of "moderate range of variation" I cannot but think that you ought to
remind your readers (though I daresay previously done) what the amount is,
including the case of the American bog-mammoth. You speak of these
animals as having been exposed to a vast range of climatal changes from
before to after the Glacial period. I should have thought, from analogy of
sea-shells, that by migration (or local extinction when migration not
possible) these animals might and would have kept under nearly the same
climate.
A rather more important consideration, as it seems to me, is that the
whole proboscidean group may, I presume, be looked at as verging towards
extinction: anyhow, the extinction has been complete as far as Europe and
America are concerned. Numerous considerations and facts have led me in
the "Origin" to conclude that it is the flourishing or dominant members of
each order which generally give rise to new races, sub-species, and species;
and under this point of view I am not at all surprised at the constancy of
your species. This leads me to remark that the sentence at the bottom of
page {80} is not applicable to my views (143/2. See Falconer at the bottom
of page 80: it is the old difficulty—how can variability co-exist with
persistence of type? In our copy of the letter the passage is given as
occurring on page 60, a slip of the pen for page 80.), though quite
applicable to those who attribute modification to the direct action of the

conditions of life. An elephant might be more individually variable than any
known quadruped (from the effects of the conditions of life or other innate
unknown causes), but if these variations did not aid the animal in better
resisting all hostile influences, and therefore making it increase in numbers,
there would be no tendency to the preservation and accumulation of such
variations—i.e. to the formation of a new race. As the proboscidean group
seems to be from utterly unknown causes a failing group in many parts of
the world, I should not have anticipated the formation of new races.
You make important remarks versus Natural Selection, and you will
perhaps be surprised that I do to a large extent agree with you. I could show
you many passages, written as strongly as I could in the "Origin," declaring
that Natural Selection can do nothing without previous variability; and I
have tried to put equally strongly that variability is governed by many laws,
mostly quite unknown. My title deceives people, and I wish I had made it
rather different. Your phyllotaxis (143/3. Falconer, page 80: "The law of
Phyllotaxis...is nearly as constant in its manifestation as any of the physical
laws connected with the material world.") will serve as example, for I quite
agree that the spiral arrangement of a certain number of whorls of leaves
(however that may have primordially arisen, and whether quite as invariable
as you state), governs the limits of variability, and therefore governs what
Natural Selection can do. Let me explain how it arose that I laid so much
stress on Natural Selection, and I still think justly. I came to think from
geographical distribution, etc., etc., that species probably change; but for
years I was stopped dead by my utter incapability of seeing how every part
of each creature (a woodpecker or swallow, for instance) had become
adapted to its conditions of life. This seemed to me, and does still seem, the
problem to solve; and I think Natural Selection solves it, as artificial
selection solves the adaptation of domestic races for man's use. But I
suspect that you mean something further,—that there is some unknown law
of evolution by which species necessarily change; and if this be so, I cannot
agree. This, however, is too large a question even for so unreasonably long
a letter as this. Nevertheless, just to explain by mere valueless conjectures
how I imagine the teeth of your elephants change, I should look at the
change as indirectly resulting from changes in the form of the jaws, or from
the development of tusks, or in the case of the primigenius even from
correlation with the woolly covering; in all cases Natural Selection
checking the variation. If, indeed, an elephant would succeed better by

feeding on some new kinds of food, then any variation of any kind in the
teeth which favoured their grinding power would be preserved. Now, I can
fancy you holding up your hands and crying out what bosh! To return to
your concluding sentence: far from being surprised, I look at it as absolutely
certain that very much in the "Origin" will be proved rubbish; but I expect
and hope that the framework will stand. (143/4. Falconer, page 80: "He
{Darwin} has laid the foundations of a great edifice: but he need not be
surprised if, in the progress of erection, the superstructure is altered by his
successors...")
I had hoped to have called on you on Monday evening, but was quite
knocked up. I saw Lyell yesterday morning. He was very curious about
your views, and as I had to write to him this morning I could not help
telling him a few words on your views. I suppose you are tired of the
"Origin," and will never read it again; otherwise I should like you to have
the third edition, and would gladly send it rather than you should look at the
first or second edition. With cordial thanks for your generous kindness.
LETTER 144. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Royal Gardens,
Kew, November 7th, 1862.
I am greatly relieved by your letter this morning about my Arctic essay,
for I had been conjuring up some egregious blunder (like the granitic plains
of Patagonia).. Certes, after what you have told me of Dawson, he will not
like the letter I wrote to him days ago, in which I told him that it was
impossible to entertain a strong opinion against the Darwinian hypothesis
without its giving rise to a mental twist when viewing matters in which that
hypothesis was or might be involved. I told him I felt that this was so with
me when I opposed you, and that all minds are subject to such obliquities!
—the Lord help me, and this to an LL.D. and Principal of a College! I
proceeded to discuss his Geology with the effrontery of a novice; and, thank
God, I urged the very argument of your letter about evidence of subsidence
—viz., not all submerged at once, and glacial action being subaerial and not
oceanic. Your letter hence was a relief, for I felt I was hardly strong enough
to have launched out as I did to a professed geologist.
(144/1. {On the subject of the above letter, see one of earlier date by Sir
J.D. Hooker (November 2nd, 1862) given in the present work (Letter 354)
with Darwin's reply (Letter 355).})
LETTER 145. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 14th {1862}.

I have read your paper (145/1. "On the disputed Affinity of the
Mammalian Genus Plagiaulax, from the Purbeck beds."—"Quart. Journ.
Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page 348, 1862.) with extreme interest, and I
thank you for sending it, though I should certainly have carefully read it, or
anything with your name, in the Journal. It seems to me a masterpiece of
close reasoning: although, of course, not a judge of such subjects, I cannot
feel any doubt that it is conclusive. Will Owen answer you? I expect that
from his arrogant view of his own position he will not answer. Your paper is
dreadfully severe on him, but perfectly courteous, and polished as the finest
dagger. How kind you are towards me: your first sentence (145/2. "One of
the most accurate observers and original thinkers of our time has discoursed
with emphatic eloquence on the Imperfection of the Geological Record.")
has pleased me more than perhaps it ought to do, if I had any modesty in
my composition. By the way, after reading the first whole paragraph, I re-
read it, not for matter, but for style; and then it suddenly occurred to me that
a certain man once said to me, when I urged him to publish some of his
miscellaneous wealth of knowledge, "Oh, he could not write,—he hated it,"
etc. You false man, never say that to me again. Your incidental remark on
the remarkable specialisation of Plagiaulax (145/3. "If Plagiaulax be
regarded through the medium of the view advocated with such power by
Darwin, through what a number of intermediate forms must not the genus
have passed before it attained the specialised condition in which the fossils
come before us!") (which has stuck in my gizzard ever since I read your
first paper) as bearing on the number of preceding forms, is quite new to
me, and, of course, is in accordance to my notions a most impressive
argument. I was also glad to be reminded of teeth of camel and tarsal bones.
(145/4. Op. cit. page 353. A reference to Cuvier's instance "of the secret
relation between the upper canine-shaped incisors of the camel and the
bones of the tarsus.") Descent from an intermediate form, Ahem!
Well, all I can say is that I have not been for a long time more interested
with a paper than with yours. It gives me a demoniacal chuckle to think of
Owen's pleasant countenance when he reads it.
I have not been in London since the end of September; when I do come I
will beat up your quarters if I possibly can; but I do not know what has
come over me. I am worse than ever in bearing any excitement. Even
talking of an evening for less than two hours has twice recently brought on
such violent vomiting and trembling that I dread coming up to London. I

hear that you came out strong at Cambridge (145/5. Prof. Owen, in a
communication to the British Association at Cambridge (1862) "On a tooth
of Mastodon from the Tertiary marls, near Shanghai," brought forward the
case of the Australian Mastodon as a proof of the remarkable geographical
distribution of the Proboscidia. In a subsequent discussion he frankly
abandoned it, in consequence of the doubts then urged regarding its
authenticity. (See footnote, page 101, in Falconer's paper "On the American
Fossil Elephant," "Nat. Hist. Review," 1863.)), and am heartily glad you
attacked the Australian Mastodon. I never did or could believe in him. I
wish you would read my little Primula paper in the "Linnean Journal,"
Volume VI. Botany (No. 22), page 77 (I have no copy which I can spare), as
I think there is a good chance that you may have observed similar cases.
This is my real hobby-horse at present. I have re-tested this summer the
functional difference of the two forms in Primula, and find all strictly
accurate. If you should know of any cases analogous, pray inform me.
Farewell, my good and kind friend.
LETTER 146. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(146/1. The following letter is interesting in connection with a letter
addressed to Sir J.D. Hooker, March 26th, 1862, No. 136, where the value
of Natural Selection is stated more strongly by Sir Joseph than by Darwin.
It is unfortunate that Sir Joseph's letter, to which this is a reply, has not been
found.)
Down, November 20th {1862}.
Your last letter has interested me to an extraordinary degree, and your
truly parsonic advice, "some other wise and discreet person," etc., etc.,
amused us not a little. I will put a concrete case to show what I think A.
Gray believes about crossing and what I believe. If 1,000 pigeons were bred
together in a cage for 10,000 years their number not being allowed to
increase by chance killing, then from mutual intercrossing no varieties
would arise; but, if each pigeon were a self-fertilising hermaphrodite, a
multitude of varieties would arise. This, I believe, is the common effect of
crossing, viz., the obliteration of incipient varieties. I do not deny that when
two marked varieties have been produced, their crossing will produce a
third or more intermediate varieties. Possibly, or probably, with domestic
varieties, with a strong tendency to vary, the act of crossing tends to give
rise to new characters; and thus a third or more races, not strictly

intermediate, may be produced. But there is heavy evidence against new
characters arising from crossing wild forms; only intermediate races are
then produced. Now, do you agree thus far? if not, it is no use arguing; we
must come to swearing, and I am convinced I can swear harder than you,
therefore I am right. Q.E.D.
If the number of 1,000 pigeons were prevented increasing not by chance
killing, but by, say, all the shorter-beaked birds being killed, then the
WHOLE body would come to have longer beaks. Do you agree?
Thirdly, if 1,000 pigeons were kept in a hot country, and another 1,000 in
a cold country, and fed on different food, and confined in different-size
aviary, and kept constant in number by chance killing, then I should expect
as rather probable that after 10,000 years the two bodies would differ
slightly in size, colour, and perhaps other trifling characters; this I should
call the direct action of physical conditions. By this action I wish to imply
that the innate vital forces are somehow led to act rather differently in the
two cases, just as heat will allow or cause two elements to combine, which
otherwise would not have combined. I should be especially obliged if you
would tell me what you think on this head.
But the part of your letter which fairly pitched me head over heels with
astonishment, is that where you state that every single difference which we
see might have occurred without any selection. I do and have always fully
agreed; but you have got right round the subject, and viewed it from an
entirely opposite and new side, and when you took me there I was
astounded. When I say I agree, I must make the proviso, that under your
view, as now, each form long remains adapted to certain fixed conditions,
and that the conditions of life are in the long run changeable; and second,
which is more important, that each individual form is a self-fertilising
hermaphrodite, so that each hair-breadth variation is not lost by
intercrossing. Your manner of putting the case would be even more striking
than it is if the mind could grapple with such numbers—it is grappling with
eternity—think of each of a thousand seeds bringing forth its plant, and then
each a thousand. A globe stretching to the furthest fixed star would very
soon be covered. I cannot even grapple with the idea, even with races of
dogs, cattle, pigeons, or fowls; and here all admit and see the accurate
strictness of your illustration.

Such men as you and Lyell thinking that I make too much of a Deus of
Natural Selection is a conclusive argument against me. Yet I hardly know
how I could have put in, in all parts of my book, stronger sentences. The
title, as you once pointed out, might have been better. No one ever objects
to agriculturalists using the strongest language about their selection, yet
every breeder knows that he does not produce the modification which he
selects. My enormous difficulty for years was to understand adaptation, and
this made me, I cannot but think, rightly, insist so much on Natural
Selection. God forgive me for writing at such length; but you cannot tell
how much your letter has interested me, and how important it is for me with
my present book in hand to try and get clear ideas. Do think a bit about
what is meant by direct action of physical conditions. I do not mean
whether they act; my facts will throw some light on this. I am collecting all
cases of bud-variations, in contradistinction to seed-variations (do you like
this term, for what some gardeners call "sports"?); these eliminate all effects
of crossing. Pray remember how much I value your opinion as the clearest
and most original I ever get.
I see plainly that Welwitschia (146/2. Sir Joseph's great paper on
Welwitschia mirabilis was published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." 1863.) will
be a case of Barnacles.
I have another plant to beg, but I write on separate paper as more
convenient for you to keep. I meant to have said before, as an excuse for
asking for so much from Kew, that I have now lost TWO seasons, by
accursed nurserymen not having right plants, and sending me the wrong
instead of saying that they did not possess.
LETTER 147. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 24th {November, 1862}.
I have just received enclosed for you, and I have thought that you would
like to read the latter half of A. Gray's letter to me, as it is political and
nearly as mad as ever in our English eyes. You will see how the loss of the
power of bullying is in fact the sore loss to the men of the North from
disunion.
I return with thanks Bates' letter, which I was glad to see. It was very
good of you writing to him, for he is evidently a man who wants
encouragement. I have now finished his paper (but have read nothing else in
the volume); it seems to me admirable. To my mind the act of segregation

of varieties into species was never so plainly brought forward, and there are
heaps of capital miscellaneous observations.
I hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present work is leading me
to believe rather more in the direct action of physical conditions. I presume
I regret it, because it lessens the glory of Natural Selection, and is so
confoundedly doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get all my facts
under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this will be. (147/1. This
paragraph was published in "Life and Letters," II., page 390. It is not clear
why a belief in "direct action" should diminish the glory of Natural
Selection, since the changes so produced must, like any other variations,
pass through the ordeal of the survival of the fittest. On the whole question
of direct action see Mr. Adam Sedgwick's "Presidential Address to the
Zoological Section of the British Association," 1899.)
LETTER 148. TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 25th {1862?}.
I should think it was not necessary to get a written agreement. (148/1.
Mr. Bates' book, "A Naturalist on the Amazons," was published in 1863.) I
have never had one from Murray. I suppose you have a letter with terms; if
not, I should think you had better ask for one to prevent misunderstandings.
I think Sir C. Lyell told me he had not any formal agreements. I am heartily
glad to hear that your book is progressing. Could you find me some place,
even a footnote (though these are in nine cases out of ten objectionable),
where you could state, as fully as your materials permit, all the facts about
similar varieties pairing,—at a guess how many you caught, and how many
now in your collection? I look at this fact as very important; if not in your
book, put it somewhere else, or let me have cases.
I entirely agree with you on the enormous advantage of thoroughly
studying one group.
I really have no criticism to make. (148/2. Mr. Bates' paper on mimetic
butterflies was read before the Linnean Society, November 21st, 1861, and
published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIII., 1862, page 495, under the title
of "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley.") Style seems to
me very good and clear; but I much regret that in the title or opening
passage you did not blow a loud trumpet about what you were going to
show. Perhaps the paper would have been better more divided into sections
with headings. Perhaps you might have given somewhere rather more of a
summary on the progress of segregation of varieties, and not referred your

readers to the descriptive part, excepting such readers as wanted minute
detail. But these are trifles: I consider your paper as a most admirable
production in every way. Whenever I come to variation under natural
conditions (my head for months has been exclusively occupied with
domestic varieties), I shall have to study and re-study your paper, and no
doubt shall then have to plague you with questions. I am heartily glad to
hear that you are well. I have been compelled to write in a hurry; so excuse
me.
LETTER 149. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 7th {1862}.
I was on the point of adding to an order to Williams & Norgate for your
Lectures (149/1. "A Course of Six Lectures to Working Men," published in
six pamphlets by Hardwicke, and later as a book. See Letter 156.) when
they arrived, and much obliged I am. I have read them with interest, and
they seem to me very good for this purpose and capitally written, as is
everything which you write. I suppose every book nowadays requires some
pushing, so that if you do not wish these lectures to be extensively
circulated, I suppose they will not; otherwise I should think they would do
good and spread a taste for the natural sciences. Anyhow, I have liked them;
but I get more and more, I am sorry to say, to care for nothing but Natural
History; and chiefly, as you once said, for the mere species question. I think
I liked No. III. the best of all. I have often said and thought that the process
of scientific discovery was identical with everyday thought, only with more
care; but I never succeeded in putting the case to myself with one-tenth of
the clearness with which you have done. I think your second geological
section will puzzle your non-scientific readers; anyhow, it has puzzled me,
and with the strong middle line, which must represent either a line of
stratification or some great mineralogical change, I cannot conceive how
your statement can hold good.
I am very glad to hear of your "three-year-old" vigour {?}; but I fear,
with all your multifarious work, that your book on Man will necessarily be
delayed. You bad man; you say not a word about Mrs. Huxley, of whom my
wife and self are always truly anxious to hear.
P.S. I see in the "Cornhill Magazine" a notice of a work by Cohn, which
apparently is important, on the contractile tissue of plants. (149/2. "Ueber
contractile Gewebe im Pflanzenreiche." "Abhand. der Schlesischen
Gesellschaft fur vaterlandische Cultur," Heft I., 1861.) You ought to have it

reviewed. I have ordered it, and must try and make out, if I can, some of the
accursed german, for I am much interested in the subject, and experimented
a little on it this summer, and came to the conclusion that plants must
contain some substance most closely analogous to the supposed diffused
nervous matter in the lower animals; or as, I presume, it would be more
accurate to say with Cohn, that they have contractile tissue.
Lecture VI., page 151, line 7 from top—wetting FEET or bodies? (Miss
Henrietta Darwin's criticism.) (149/3. Lecture VI., page 151: Lamarck
"said, for example, that the short-legged birds, which live on fish, had been
converted into the long-legged waders by desiring to get the fish without
wetting their feet."
Their criticisms on Lectures IV. and VI. are on a separate piece of
undated paper, and must belong to a letter of later date; only three lectures
were published by December 7th, 1862.)
Lecture IV., page 89—Atavism.
You here and there use atavism = inheritance. Duchesne, who, I believe,
invented the word, in his Strawberry book confined it, as every one has
since done, to resemblance to grandfather or more remote ancestor, in
contradistinction to resemblance to parents.
LETTER 150. TO JOHN SCOTT.
(150/1. The following is the first of a series of letters addressed to the late
John Scott, of which the major part is given in our Botanical chapters. We
have been tempted to give this correspondence fully not only because of its
intrinsic scientific interest, but also because they are almost the only letters
which show Darwin in personal relation with a younger man engaged in
research under his supervision.)
{1862?}
To the best of my judgment, no subject is so important in relation to
theoretical natural science, in several respects, and likewise in itself
deserving investigation, as the effects of changed or unnatural conditions, or
of changed structure on the reproductive system. Under this point of view
the relation of well-marked but undoubted varieties in fertilising each other
requires far more experiments than have been tried. See in the "Origin" the
brief abstract of Gartner on Verbascum and Zea. Mr. W. Crocker, lately
foreman at Kew and a very good observer, is going at my suggestion to

work varieties of hollyhock. (150/2. Altheae species. These experiments
seem not to have been carried out.) The climate would be too cold, I
suppose, for varieties of tobacco. I began on cabbages, but immediately
stopped from early shedding of their pollen causing too much trouble. Your
knowledge would suggest some {plants}. On the same principle it would be
well to test peloric flowers with their own pollen, and with pollen of regular
flowers, and try pollen of peloric on regular flowers—seeds being counted
in each case. I have now got one seedling from many crosses of a peloric
Pelargonium by peloric pollen; I have two or three seedlings from a peloric
flower by pollen of regular flower. I have ordered a peloric Antirrhinum
(150/3. See "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page
70.) and the peloric Gloxinia, but I much fear I shall never have time to try
them. The Passiflora cases are truly wonderful, like the Crinum cases (see
"Origin"). (150/4. "Origin," Edition VI., page 238.) I have read in a German
paper that some varieties of potatoes (name not given) cannot be fertilised
by {their} own pollen, but can by pollen of other varieties: well worth
trying. Again, fertility of any monster flower, which is pretty regularly
produced; I have got the wonderful Begonia frigida (150/5. The species on
which Sir J.D. Hooker wrote in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," February 25th,
1860. See "Life and Letters," II., page 275.) from Kew, but doubt whether I
have heat to set its seeds. If an unmodified Celosia could be got, it would be
well to test with the modified cockscomb. There is a variation of columbine
{Aquilegia} with simple petals without nectaries, etc., etc. I never could
think what to try; but if one could get hold of a long-cultivated plant which
crossed with a distinct species and yielded a very small number of seeds,
then it would be highly good to test comparatively the wild parent-form and
its varying offspring with this third species: for instance, if a polyanthus
would cross with some species of Primula, then to try a wild cowslip with
it. I believe hardly any primulas have ever been crossed. If we knew and
could get the parent of the carnation (150/6. Dianthus caryophyllus, garden
variety.), it would be very good for this end. Any member of the Lythraceae
raised from seed ought to be well looked after for dimorphism. I have
wonderful facts, the result of experiment, on Lythrum salicaria.
LETTER 151. TO JOHN SCOTT. Down, December 11th {1862}.
I have read your paper with much interest. (151/1. "On the Nature and
Peculiarities of the Fern-spore." "Bot. Soc. Edin." Read June 12th, 1862.)
You ask for remarks on the matter, which is alone really important. Shall